Need Advice What are some ways the "Old Timers" used to cut corners?

[Lancifer]

Hello, I've been asked to give a talk at a local community event about woodworking. I wanted to talk about why more people should make things without holding themselves to impossibly high standards, using a bunch of ways that woodworkers used to and still do things to minimize the time/effort/material needed. The classic example of this IMO is leaving things like the underside of drawer bottoms raw, not planing away the sawmill marks where you will never see them. Modern YouTube woodworking might tell you that drawer bottoms should be perfectly fitted, sanded, and finished, but I more often find them raw, unfinished and made in a mismatching wood, usually poplar or pine when I find pieces from the before-times.

What are some other things a modern perfectionist woodworker might find to be a hack fix but were actually very common a hundred years ago?

 

[Oka]

Float the surface with filler then paint. Or, conversely, you could treat with rabbit skin glue then paint.
OR, thicken the paint with plaster (Oil base then) or add ceiling texture to thicken the paint (latex now) then paint.

 

[jlimey]

overcutting past the baseline for half-blind dovetails on the inside of drawers, easing the chopping of waste.

 

[mkepke]

Some examples that come to mind:

Nailing on the backs of cabinets, especially with ship-lap boards (instead of wonderfully constructed backs)

Chairs with turned spindles, where some of the spindles still have flats on them (where the bodgers turning green sticks didn't get perfect results)

In a similar vein, the classic Windsor chair is traditionally bodgered out of a collection of woods chosen for their utility (including ease of working) and unified with a coat of paint.

-Mark

 

[Lancifer]

These are all excellent, thank you!

 

[Lancifer]

overcutting past the baseline for half-blind dovetails on the inside of drawers, easing the chopping of waste.

Do you mean on the tails side or the pins side? Im trying to picture this in my head

 

[jlimey]

On the pins/drawer front side. The tails on the drawer sides are cut as with through dovetails. The sockets for these tails are cut into the drawer front which means you need to remove the corresponding waste from the socket. Now that I am trying to describe the process I realize that I am not sure how to reference the surfaces. If we stand the drawer front vertically up in the vise, We need to cut a line from the lip of the drawer front which will remain diagonally down to the baseline where the inside of the dovetail will rest in the socket. Most people try not to saw past that baseline and into the visible inside of the drawer front. But if you lower the handle of the saw and saw past the baseline, that frees more of the waste between the pins so removal of the waste with a chisel is quicker.

Hope that makes sense

 

[creasman]

I'm not sure I would label these as "cutting corners". Just like today, furniture makers of the 18th and 19th century charged based on time and materials. The people buying the furniture did not expect to pay for finished treatment on areas that were unseen. It's a difference in sensibilities b/w then and now. The fact that their work has stood the test of time shows they were not cutting corners in terms of workmanship.

You see this show up in other ways. If you look at price books from the 18th century you'll find they price components individually. For example, if you were purchasing a Federal table with bell flowers inlayed on the legs you would see three prices: one for only having flowers on the front of the legs, one for flowers on the front and inside of the legs and another for flowers on front, inside and back of the legs.

 

[jfynyson]

It's my understanding it was typical to only square up the portions of boards that actually contained the joinery rather than perfectly flattening an entire board and every edge/face. Of course one would need to flatten & square up enough of the material to properly reference & mark up the joinery portions.

 

[mkepke]

Jim - I understand Lance to be defining "cutting corners" as 'traditional methods of work that would bother a (woodworking) perfectionist' not e.g. 'cheating the customer'.

Maybe another example would be buying, rather than making, decorative elements like banding, inlays and moldings?

I've felt compelled to make my own banding, inlays and molding..and it's a lot of work!

-Mark

 

[Graywolf]

Much like the design elements of a piece the fit and finish has become subjective. The evolution of manufacturing furniture has affected the idea of what is a cut corner and what is not. By the same token the hobbyist woodworker has effected that notion by a similar degree.

Lance I have to say you are a brave man for tackling this subject. Comparing the fit and finish of a piece that is over a hundred years or greater old to a piece built today is truly apples to oranges. I say this because based on what I have seen and read over the past several years is that the mind set toward these details have evolved and changed. Looking at the past is a lesson not just in how things were built, but the details that were considered important. The balance between efficiency and effectiveness in relationship to production and the expectations of the market have a profound influence on what we consider important in finished products weather produced commercially or as a one off piece by a hobbyist. The influence of the commercial over the hobbyist and vise-versa, they influence one another greatly. So a good example is one persons cut corner is another’s historical representation of how it was done back then. So who’s the perfectionist now?

Another thing I have observed over the past years is the desire to learn a task with the reluctance to actually practice it to a level of confidence. Oh and I can buy a piece of equipment to do that.

Also, the search for a finish that is easy, looks as if you labored for days and is bulletproof. Oh, only takes one coat.
So, you have put all this effort into producing a piece you are proud of and you want to cut corners on the finish.

Ok so I rambled a little but I hope some of this can help. I hope your presentation goes well.

 

[danmart77]

Well I would add: using biscuits and dowels is a feeble way of joinery used often with 21st century woodworkers. Folks here on the forum go around full mortise and tenon joints to complete a task -- poorly I might add. This is cutting corners in my view and it is something hobbyists have the time to change.

Dan

 

[danmart77]

Years ago I built this desk bottom then I build another just like it. While showing the piece a man walked up and told me he liked it but wondered why I had chosen white pine for the back and didn't use walnut for the drawer sides. I told him there are only so many walnut trees in the forest.

You have to wonder what is going thru some people's heads???

 

[Gotcha6]

I'm not an antique expert, but I have watched enough Antiques Roadshow to realize that old period pieces like that always used softwoods for the secondaries (pine, poplar,etc). In fact, before there were commercial planers, that wood might be dressed only on the face side.
You done good on that one.................

 

[jlwest]

I think much of the older furniture is better than todays. Secondary woods for drawer sides and bottoms was common. No MDF or plywood. Most wood workers, today or yesterday, took pride in their work so did not "cut corners". Tool limits, wood availability, and skill were often the limiting factors. Another way to look at this is the old ways of doing things vs. new ways to achieve a similar result. Mechanical/electric tools changed a lot of ways how things are done and the time required to achieve a result.