Drawleaf Table. 1600s.

[IanW]

I did mean now.
I like the idea of benches ... the other half isn't convinced.

But I think I could build a bench. Chairs ... hmmm ...one day ...

Cheers,
Paul

Hmmm, I think I'm with t'other half on this issue, Paul. I like something at my back, for a bit of reassurance.

Chairs are intimidating when you first look at one with serious intent. The realisation you need to make a whole lot of unsquare joints and odd-shaped parts is just too much for most newbies to cope with. Strangely, one of the first bits of furniture I made at the ripe old age of 13 or 14 was a chair for my little brother (well, he was little then, he's a head taller than I, these days.. ). Amazing what confidence there is in ignorance. This chair had no unsquare joints - none of that unnecessary complication, for a 13 year old! In fact there were very few M&T joints in that chair, either. Nails (recycled!) were used freely (most of the the gaps were too wide for glue, anyway), and it wouldn't have won any design awards with its straight stance & odd-looking short back. Needless to say, it soon became a wee bit rickety, but would you believe, it hung together & was used by several successive kids as well as the original 'owner'. I was even sat on, occasionally, by large (& obviously not risk-averse) adults. The darn thing is still there, in the old house, 55 years on, and still gets used occasionally. My mum used to point out my handiwork proudly to visitors, to my increasing embarrassment....

Making that chair helped me to realise there was a little more involved in chair-making than a handful of nails and some bridle joints, and many years had to pass before I found the courage to try again. By the time I tackled the next one, though, I had learnt a little bit more about woodworking and had some idea of how to lay out the joins (as well as being able to cut them so they fit a little more neatly!). Like a lot of seemingly complicated things, it turns out it's nothing more than a series of fairly simple steps - if each is executed accurately, you end up with something that looks just like a chair, and pretty solid, too ....

Cheers,

[pmcgee]

Brian Boggs. Chair-maker. on fb.

"An interesting apparatus coming together in the shop. Can you guess what this is for?"

"Brian Boggs Chairmakersokay, everybody gets a star! however there is a difference in this one and the traditional type. The slight flat between the dovetail sides prevents the dovetails from binding. The resulting action is really quite nice! The keys in the dovetails are waxed black locust which add to the slick action. Almost like it has ball bearings. Our best glides yet!"


BB slide 2.jpg BB slide 1.jpg

[auscab]

Looks like the rails for French style extension tables . I think they are french because the first one I made was copied directly from a french table. its a nice way of extending tables.

[Berlin]

That looks like a pretty extreme DT angle. Does it need to be so acute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pmcgee]

The thing I just wondered is ... how are they used?

They pull out straight and level, so is this where you pull out the leaves then drop in extra sections to fill in the gaps?

Cheers,
Paul

[IanW]

The thing I just wondered is ... how are they used?

They pull out straight and level, so is this where you pull out the leaves then drop in extra sections to fill in the gaps?

Cheers,
Paul

Paul: Yes.
For some reason, the link I put in my earlier post went to the wrong page. This will take you to the right spot, I hope, and the pics are pretty self-explanatory.

Matt: I don't know why the Boggs' D/Ts have that angle - they look to be about 30 degrees, which is double the 14 or so of common drawer D/Ts. The table I made with the LV slides doesn't live with me any more, so I can't check what angle they use.

I remember an article on making dovetailed table slides in FWW. It must be at least 20 years ago, & could be 30, but anyone with access to their index should be able to find it with the right search words...

Cheers,

[auscab]

They are not the best for keeping level over long distances , center legs solve that, and stop them wearing out , or slow the wear in a big way. The center legs need to be well braced back to the rail they are screwed to , that's one of the reasons I have a basic forge set up at work. I have cut the dovetailed rails on my table saw and made them with a router. They need a stop set up in each as well so they don't pull right out when your extending. The nice thing about these tables is they extend easily with two people, you could do it by yourself , just a little more difficult. No need for big extension screws like needed when a table is made the English way, a tight frame within a frame .

Rob

[auscab]

With the dovetail angle , I think the more acute angle lessons the possibility of a wedging effect, and also the amount of slack distance the rails can separate from each other as well .
A .3mm gap 90 degrees off the face of the wood on the acute DT has less room to move horizontally apart than a .3mm gap on the 90 degree off the face on a dovetail with a less acute angle . A little tricky to explain that one !! it could be a reason as well though

[IanW]

With the dovetail angle , I think the more acute angle lessons the possibility of a wedging effect, and also the amount of slack distance the rails can separate from each other as well .
A .3mm gap 90 degrees off the face of the wood on the acute DT has less room to move horizontally apart than a .3mm gap on the 90 degree off the face on a dovetail with a less acute angle . A little tricky to explain that one !! it could be a reason as well though

I think I get your drift, Rob. I guess you work out a compromise that keeps the joint tight but doesn't make those outer corners too sharp & weak. You're dead right, they can sag like an old mule in the middle if you don't support them in some way.

My solution to the sagging problem was a bit simpler than yours, and didn't involve extra legs. Instead of a split side-skirt, the runners are supported by a ledger strip screwed to the inside of a fixed skirt. The runner mechanism doesn't support the table the way it is intended to do, it just serves as the mechanism enabling the the two halves to be pulled apart from one end. The LV extensions are not all that long, & I didn't like the idea of two large expanses of unsupported top so I screwed a couple of hefty cleats under the main sections of the top. These required a slot in the end skirts for them to pass through. I wasn't totally pleased with my solution, but they weren't noticeable, even with the table closed up. At least it is stiff & stable when fully extended, and guests could put their weight on the top as they stood up (or lean heavily on their elbows as the night wore on ), with no alarming dips & glasses crashing over.......

Cheers,

[Fuzzie]

This popped into my email today.

If you are having problems visualizing how a draw leaf works, this video should set you right.

[IanW]

It certainly makes it clear, Fuzzie.

IIRC, Tage Frid described the exact mechanism in an article in FWW about 30 something years ago (he didn't take credit for the idea, so I assume it was dreamed up a long time before that). It' a good system, but it restricts you to having square edges and sharp corners on your table top. No moulding and no rounding of the corners. If you moulded around the edge of your top, it would look rather odd when closed up, and a rounded corner would leave a very unsightly indentation in the join when the extra leaves were in use. But it's a neat solution if you want a clean-lined table top.

Cheers,

[auscab]

You do see rounded corners of a sort Ian , up around about a 4"radius and mouldings of some types , just google
French Parquetry top draw leaf. I cant see something like a D end being done , but it may have been tried .

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=f...ed=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

The one restricting thing I think of is that you need a box under your top , whether there are legs in the corners or not . I have seen Trestle type tables made as draw leaf tables , and its a box under the top to make it work .

The other thing about them for modern use is your fighting for space for your legs under the rails and trying to keep the top low as well , it barely works . A good comfortable table has lots of leg room under the rail and a low top as well and the two top thicknesses doesn't help .

Another thing I don't like is the loose top , a 19mm top left loose is asking for trouble . if your doing your two top thickness at 25mm ea or more that suits Early style tables but blows leg space away IMO . And the loose 19mm top can warp much more easily and does.

There is a certain type of client /s that will call you out to their house to fix a problem like a top shifting 2mm that cant be fixed ." the answer is simple " lady or Man you have to tell them . don't cook your furniture in winter!!

They were a rustic robust invention and were made heavy mostly and worked better heavy , light weight ones work, but expect that they may have movement and things are fine . mention that to a client though and they get scared of that type of table.

Of course veneered plywood or chipboard tops can solve these problems. Another good way of turning off a sale though.

Rob

[IanW]

Hmm, I stand corrected, again. So rounded corners were done, but you have to admit, it looks odd having the leaf meet with a gap formed by the rounded end. However, it's better than a sharp, thigh-traumatising corner, I'll allow. The examples you link to have used a symmetrical side moulding that does look ok when the leaves are in. I was thinking of a thumbnail moulding, which wouldn't look so good one under the other. Just wasn't using much imagination, clearly.......


Cheers,

[hiroller]

I recall seeing an example with rounded corners where the leaf had concave inner end to match the rounding. However in the link above there is an even more extravagant example.
All the antique versions I've seen of these have been very substantial.
image.jpgimage.jpg

[Fuzzie]

The other thing about them for modern use is your fighting for space for your legs under the rails and trying to keep the top low as well , it barely works . A good comfortable table has lots of leg room under the rail and a low top as well and the two top thicknesses doesn't help .

Another thing I don't like is the loose top , a 19mm top left loose is asking for trouble . if your doing your two top thickness at 25mm ea or more that suits Early style tables but blows leg space away IMO . And the loose 19mm top can warp much more easily and does.
Rob

The table I had originally planned to make in this style was vetoed by the Fuzzette for exactly these reasons. As it is I cannot cross my legs under the rail, and with the "Raffles" style chairs we use, the top really would have been too high by adding another 25mm table top thickness.

Ian, in that early FWW Tage Frid article he profiled the table edge supposedly to disguise possible misalignment of the leaves when retracted. I think it was a simple undercut chamfer. He also recommended using plywood for the top rather than solid construction.