Menu
What's new

Fine furniture?

Well Rob, I think the difference of view is mostly in the definition of quality (so we're essentially down to arguing about definitions of definitions :rofl:). Overall I think we're in violent agreement on the core of the matter.

Based on your example I would argue that those cabinets are not quality - as per the definition I was using - see below (and questionable on fit for the purpose in many cases, expedient for sure and I've used similar when it was useful to do so but not with any expectation of quality or fine furniture :D). In particular the design wasn't high quality, the materials aren't high quality, the workmanship isn't high quality and well the finish not so much either.

I do find your interpretation of the word quality within context interesting as we're both well within the dictionary definitions, but varied somewhat in what connotation was chosen primarily (in fact your usage is closer to websters #1 definition - "a peculiar and essential character/an inherent feature/capacity, role", whereas in this context I was shooting for closer to websters #2 definition "a degree of excellence/superior in kind"). The differences in connotation between word usage in different parts of the world that speak the same language is I'm sure the source of vast amounts of misunderstandings.
 
Ryan Mooney said:
The differences in connotation between word usage in different parts of the world that speak the same language is I'm sure the source of vast amounts of misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. Good discussion all around. It seems that the elusive element that makes fine furniture "fine" is just as elusive in defining the other characteristics that we each attribute to the "fine" in fine furniture ;-) Yet another example of what makes this forum so great; we can have these discussions and remain civil. Anyone dropped in on one of those other forums lately; they're a crack up. They burn more words in chest beating and saber-rattling than they do in discussions of anything woodworking.
 
For my own work, I don't consider it to be "fine" until I'm up to about 220 grit. When I start a piece (80 grit), it's still pretty coarse. :D

Seriously, good topic and good discussion, Alan. :thumb:
 
Well I'll be honest with everyone here in that I wasn't sure what to expect when I posted this. This subject has been gnawing at me for the past couple months and I couldn't take it no more so I posted.

For me I could care less what method was used to build the piece because lets face it there's more than one way to get to the finished product.

Material selection and use also go hand in hand with the design and plays a big part.

The final thing that helps me to decide if it's fine furniture or not is the care that the finished piece received from the owner during it's ownership. Whether they thought enough of it to hand it down to the next generation.
 
Alan Bienlein said:
The final thing that helps me to decide if it's fine furniture or not is the care that the finished piece received from the owner during it's ownership. Whether they thought enough of it to hand it down to the next generation.
Click to expand...

Interesting and certainly worth considering. The risk of using that is consumer confusion. I've seen a lot of folk who were awfully proud of something they had bought (or made, but that seems to be less common if you talk to the maker directly, we're all overly critical :D) that were .. well not "fine" anyway :D. I've also seen beautiful old pieces that were treated pretty harshly and not appreciated at all (makes you want to cry).
 
Another perspective.

Years ago I was involved in judging woodworking pieces. There were 5 areas in which to judge with 5 points available in each area. Design, functionality, wood selection, workmanship, and finish.

None included tools or methods used. Obviously there were differing requirements depending on each of the five areas. As an example, a garden bench likely would not be French polished and garner top points, evening in the finish area, simply because of the inappropriateness of the finish. The interactivity of the areas had to 'work' together.

FWIW, the pieces judged were segregated by tooling required; i.e., turning, carving, cabinetry, furniture, accessories, etc.

The reason I offer this is because 'fine' is in the eye of the beholder. The end user is often oblivious as to tooling, techniques, even materials. They simply want to know that it works for them and they like it. Only we persnickety woodworkers find it amusing to discuss methodology. Good topic, great contributions, and I enjoyed reading it.
 
I had a thought after seeing your post Larry and it takes me back to Chalies excellent write up he linked to.

I think the answer to your point lies in between the point Carol made about it being related to the individuals view and what Chalie said about cost.

I would argue that all three versions of his offering at different prices are "Fine Furniture" and the showing parts and build to me would be a given as to that category. Whether the back is covered with ply or not etc comes down to what the customer, note there always had to be some or other customer for any piece, was prepared to pay.

What you asking is equivalent to the question of does a tenon and mortise joint need to be made by cutting a tennon on one side and a mortise on the other or can one cut a slot on both and use a piece of wood to act as the tennon.

Does the former then make the piece more of a piece of Fine Furniture? In my view i dont think so. None of us look at or can see the mortise insides after its all glued up.

But again to someone with say $400 to spend and wanting a cabinet like Chalies, well they might warp their mind to think that the TaiChi Walmart Diy assembly offering of something similar is a piece of Fine Furniture to them. Sure would be if their only reference to make the judgement has been living in a cardboard box.

Lets all be honest. No ways would we be able to look at a piece and say it fitted the classical description of Fine Woodworking. But as we gain more experience, read more and see more our knowledge on what constitutes Fine Woodworking grows and changes.

This to me comes back to the issue Carol once raised and Charlie has repeated it in a different way but the same message. If one wishes to sell craftsman furniture and be compensated for it in a fit manner that leaves a pleasant taste in the mouth one needs to educate the customer and then provide choice.

We may wish to spend our days using hand tools and slowly arriving at the destination of a well made heirloom quality piece of Fine Furniture, but does it fulfill the customers definition of Fine Furniture and are they willing to pay the corresponding price tag.

I know a certain family member (and by this i mean my own family) that if the choice was to arise to have one of the choices that Charlie offered manufactured, then the choice would be the $10 000 version. No question. But the motive behind this would be for very different reasons than most of us would think. I can eliminate one of them and that is not because of connoisseur tastes in Fine Woodworking. Its the same for someone i know who recently spent $100 000 on a kitchen upgrade yet they do not cook. :eek:
 
larry merlau said:
not my intent ryan, just asking thoughts.. i know what i have been told in the past and that may not be the concense here..and i may not have done it the proper way.
Click to expand...

:D all good, the wink at the end threw me. I don't actually think there is a "proper way", or at least not one that more than 3 woodworkers in a room would agree on. Its an interesting case study though because its nice and specific so I'll throw my answer to the wolves and please everyone feel free to agree/disagree in specifics, I'm curious what the different opinions are to.

For me personally:
Yes to plywood where it works well. Some really high end old work actually had hand made plywood to avoid movement, so using a modern replacement that's easier to obtain and use seems entirely reasonable to me. I would want a reasonably high grade of plywood, preferably solid hardwood core with some thought given to the species for stability and clean faces. I would endeavour to hide/encapsulate the edges from any visible locations (if the cabinet was fixed to the wall, I wouldn't worry overmuch about the back, but if it was to sit in the middle of the room I'd probably put it in a dado instead of a simple rebate or maybe (probably) trim work to make it more part of the whole.

For fixing in place, honestly I could say anything from simply nailing it on with tacks to encapsulating in a dado as a floating panel. Assuming the casework was solid wood I probably wouldn't get a whole lot more rigid than either of those for fear of movement.

Now I can hear and understand the argument for solid wood there and something like T&G or shiplap panels... and if you were recreating a period piece I would definitely think that was a valid argument from a design and style perspective. In the abstract case though I would argue that excluding any specific technique or material is overly limiting and being able to use modern materials can allow you to push in new directions.
 
Slight clearing of what I meant and obviously didn't do an adequate job of explaining. Fine furniture is not "related to the individuals view." It is relevant to the design and execution of the piece. If the design calls for a beaded back, then perhaps the most practical way of getting there is ship-lapped solid wood. Points off for faux plywood beaded 'look.'

With regard to the back being plywood. In today's world, absolutely. For a dozen reasons, but if the piece is a reproduction of a certain style, then most likely not. If the piece is functional and esthetically pleasing to the eye, with good craftsmanship and finish, you're golden. Remember that art is also a function! Not offered as an incendiary devise here. :D And very few people will pay extra for something they don't appreciate, i.e., the 'fine' in fine furniture. All craftsmen in the business of making product to sell always have and always will do what will get the job done with money left for beans for the table.

Backs on furniture offer structural integrity to the piece, no matter what they are made of. They can also offer beauty and the practicality of keeping things from being pushed off the back. If 19th century craftsmen had plywood, they would have used it - in a nano second. I'd submit there is no right and wrong here. Cost and practicality maybe, but right or wrong? Not so much.
 
Ryan Mooney said:
I looked really hard for an emoticon of someone stirring the pot but sure couldn't find it :rofl:
Click to expand...

Apparently not hard enough, buddy.
5719.gif
 
larry merlau said:
not my intent ryan, just asking thoughts.. i know what i have been told in the past and that may not be the concense here..and i may not have done it the proper way.
Click to expand...

As long as your ok and can live with the way you attached a back to a woodworking project then I would consider it the right way.

I don't know if you noticed lately that I march to the beat of a different drummer in my recent projects. You can be a follower all your life or take chances and be innovative.

Some one once told me that the view always changes when your out front but remains the same if you always follow in someone else's foot steps.

I'm not sure any of us can decide if we have made "fine" furniture. I think that's for future generations to decide.

I really think if you have all the elements in place as far as design, wood selection and craftsmanship then it needs to stand the test of time. By that I mean it needs to be taken care of and left unchanged.

I've seen to many pieces bought at antique stores only to be cut up and modified for a use other than what was intended.

I may never know if what I have built will ever be considered fine furniture. Hopefully it will still be in use and taken care of when I pass. If that happens then I think I might have succeeded.
 
Alan Bienlein said:
I may never know if what I have built will ever be considered fine furniture. Hopefully it will still be in use and taken care of when I pass. If that happens then I think I might have succeeded.
Click to expand...


thats my only goal with woodworking.
Hopefully someone close to me, or even a stranger, admires what I built, uses it as a piece of furniture, not something stored in an attic, and it lasts forever.
fine or not, Im happy with that.
 
well for me in the future, i got 3 dressers in the works but cant find time to get to them but they will have ply backs and hopefully will be passed down to the heirs of there respective family. but i have thoughts that screws are better than nails. have seen many screws used on old factory made furniture and some of the inner support stuff is real rough, not even planed smooth. sometimes the inside of drawers were rough. so we today are making things differently than they were made in the factories of old that some call antiques now..
 
larry merlau said:
well for me in the future, i got 3 dressers in the works but cant find time to get to them but they will have ply backs and hopefully will be passed down to the heirs of there respective family. but i have thoughts that screws are better than nails. have seen many screws used on old factory made furniture and some of the inner support stuff is real rough, not even planed smooth. sometimes the inside of drawers were rough. so we today are making things differently than they were made in the factories of old that some call antiques now..
Click to expand...

Screws are definitely different than nails :D I wouldn't say better or worse, but certainly different (master of the obvious I know - loml points it out all the time, to which I've started responding - right back at you :rofl:).

More specifically in general (specifically the difference are generally as stated excepting cases where they are not):
  • Most nails are more flexible than most screws. This makes them "better" (in many cases) for uses where there is lateral flex applied to the joint as they are less likely to fracture (assuming the same rough diameter of nail/screw). I would personally choose nails for case backs mostly for this reason, pre-drilling the holes in the back and then nailing in place allows slightly more flex and also - see the next item (depending on the thickness of the back, say for <= 1/4"). The downside of this is that a nail is more likely to bend than a screw will for something that needs to be super rigid, but won't fail as catastrophically (which is why we still see nails used for wall studs).
  • nails have smaller heads than screws (no need to countersink) so they are nice for attaching thin pieces to thicker pieces as you leave more of the wood in play making is possible stronger (i.e. for case backs).
  • Screws obviously resist pulling out more than nails, but square nails are pretty decent that way as well, as are ribbed or spiral nails (and probably others). This is pretty much their main advantage for me, so for instance I wouldn't hang a cabinet with nails, but would use screws to avoid pullout).
  • on failure I often find it easier to patch nail pullouts than screws, although its certainly a question of degree there

Found this while looking for actual data to support my statements, only somewhat related but interesting http://www.millardlumber.com/HowTo/nails/screws.htm

I'd sort of agree that a lot of us (got an introspective emoticon handy Vaughn?) spend to much time on details that nobody will ever see. Certainly the case I could spend more time on details that are visible if I spent less time on the ones that aren't..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top