Thread: How I hate gum wood, let me count the ways

Originally Posted by IanW

Man, you have my utmost respect for managing to tiger that stuff into any shape, let alone the pretty presentable result you've got there! Don't be too hard on yourself, if you look closely at old carvings they can be pretty 'rough', they are meant to create lines & shadows that look fine from a few feet away. I've seen close-ups of some of Grinling Gibbons' work and the detail looks pretty rough from a few inches away, but quite impressive when viewed from across the room....

Be interesting to know if what you are working on is RRG (E. camaldulensis) or Forrest RG (E. tereticornis). In my experience, FRG is far & away the harder & more ornery of the two. I haven't worked with a lot of either, but some RRG I've had has been quite tolerable to work with and not so bad to plane, but it is certainly brittle & I have never tried carving it. It also seems to me to be more often figured than FRG, though FRG can certainly have plenty of figure too, which makes it even more nasty to work with! All of the FRG I've encountered is more like cast-iron than wood, it takes the edge off any tool in about three seconds and I defy anyone to plane the figured stuff without tear-out. I made a couple of work-benches from FRG & that was enough to make me avoid it for the rest of my life. They turned out fine after much blood, sweat & not a few tears, which is just as well 'ços I would hate to have to do them again!

Cheers,

Mostly I'm just venting and not really that mad LOL. I will say, motivation for this project is hard to come by though. But!! The hard parts are past me now. One thing's for sure, there's going to be a lot of scraping and sanding to blend and hide the many sins. The first leg turned out pretty well, but the other two have successively become worse. It might be that the first one I wasn't trying to copy what's been done, so I was freer to let it evolve. And or the other two legs are just more difficult grain... One thing I did differently on the last leg was glue the paper pattern on the leg. The other two I drew free hand. I think that may have contributed to me losing touch with the design as the photocopy was very dark and drawing it on I would have reinforced my mental picture of where I need to get to.

I'm pretty certain it's river red gum, at least by the pics on the internet I've compared it to.

I look at the pie crust top and I did it over 14 years ago and honestly can't believe it turned out so well considering how difficult the wood is. Might be that I was so ignorant of how knarly this stuff was I was happy to blindly power on

Never again though.

First time it's kinda been together to see how it all looks. Still need to make the bird cage but that'll be a piece of cake. It was good to leave that to the end, after I got the rest together. As can be seen the inner post that the bird cage swivels on is way too long. Probably need to shorten it up by at least an inch...

It looks amazing regardless of the trials and tribulations of working with Australian hardwoods. I can only imagine the woodworkers on the First Fleet, alighting their ship with the best tools for wrangling English Oak, only to find their best steel could be barely deform Australian Eucalypt timber.

Birdcage is together and for the most part it's good. Except... Where the stretchers are drilled for the pivot pins is out by about 1mm. So when the top is pivoted into vertical it looks like sh$%. It was out by about 5mm and I corrected it, pic 3, but it still needs more tweaking... Damned if I know how I got that far out of alignment... Overall, it's completely unacceptable. The rail in pic 1 will be thrown out and the holes in the birdcage top plate will be plugged and redrilled once I make a new rail and marry the two up.

The birdcage on such tilt top tables hasn't changed in 300 years. The top and bottom plate of the birdcage are square - always. So, I was showing the wife my CAD drawing of the birdcage and pictures of a recently sold one from Sotheby's... To get an idea, the one that sold at Sothebys, sold for $1,016,000USD... Needless to say, it was worth paying attention to... First thing out of my wife's mouth though, when viewing the pics of the table and my CAD drawing is: It's wrong... That thingy there shouldn't be square. None of the rest of the table is square, why is it? She was talking about the bottom plate on the birdcage... Throughout history, since these tables have been made, the bottom plate is always square - no exceptions. But she was right, when I looked at it. So, I reworked things in the drawings and made mine round, as can be seen in the pic. It was a bit of a gamble in that the only way to know if would work was to make it... And damn, does it so much better. To be honest, I can't believe no one hasn't thought of that before. Or were all the craftsmen so stuck with tradition they never questioned aspects of the design.

Must admit, I've never given the "squirrel cage" or "cricket cage" (depending on where you're from ), any thought, despite having made numerous examples of these things (all bar one were small size for use as occasional tables & don't have "pie crust" tops). Now you've gone & made me feel guilty for never questioning the design logic!

I think there could be a couple of reasons why both top & bottom plates are square apart from blind tradition. The top has to be square, or at least have two parallel sides so the cleats on the top can be attached, so it makes sense to have the bottom plate match for ease in setting out & drilling the holes for the spacer spindles (which, as I'm sure you've noticed, are often very plain & don't match the main leg spindle pattern other than vaguely). And apart from that, when the top is down, the cage is out of sight to all but very inebriated guests.

With the first couple I made, I followed tradition and made the cage rotatable, as per originals. That proved to be not a great idea for small tables, too easy to send a cuppa or glass of more comforting liquid flying! So I made fixed cages on all later models.

The smaller tables (~580mm high with tops ~500mm diameter) are really useful for two old fogies who tend to watch the news whilst eating dinner....

Rosewood occ table.jpg

The gum leaves on the knees are my feeble substitute for acanthus...


Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I think there could be a couple of reasons why both top & bottom plates are square apart from blind tradition. The top has to be square, or at least have two parallel sides so the cleats on the top can be attached, so it makes sense to have the bottom plate match for ease in setting out & drilling the holes for the spacer spindles (which, as I'm sure you've noticed, are often very plain & don't match the main leg spindle pattern other than vaguely)

The whole squirrel cage thing is something I've never really given any thought to, having never needed to. They ain't common in my world.

But... do the bottom plates fit neatly between the two battens on the table-top when it's opened? That may add an element of robustness to the table if it's moved around while open. (I'm guessing that it's better to open and grip it high on the pillar to move, than lifting by the tabletop?)

Hmmm... they'd also assist in keeping the hinges true when opened, so it'd fold back nicely.

That is one very nice looking table!
Im commenting without having closely read every word you have posted. I’ll have to go back and read through. Edit, I did that.
Was the pie crust moulding all hand cut? How long did that take?
Are you going to replace those screws with something better looking?
And what about a Steel plate at the column base holding the three legs? Any original that hasn’t broken the column usually has one.
looking forward to seeing it polished.

Rob

Originally Posted by AnthonySeiver

It looks amazing regardless of the trials and tribulations of working with Australian hardwoods. I can only imagine the woodworkers on the First Fleet, alighting their ship with the best tools for wrangling English Oak, only to find their best steel could be barely deform Australian Eucalypt timber.

Probably chucked it at the stone masons, and said: I think this is for you lot.

Originally Posted by IanW

Now you've gone & made me feel guilty for never questioning the design logic!

You should have asked the expert... Your wife, like I did.

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

But... do the bottom plates fit neatly between the two battens on the table-top when it's opened? That may add an element of robustness to the table if it's moved around while open. (I'm guessing that it's better to open and grip it high on the pillar to move, than lifting by the tabletop?)

Hmmm... they'd also assist in keeping the hinges true when opened, so it'd fold back nicely.

Probably not, as the top doesn't lock while up so it's free to sway. This one doesn't seem to have much play. The birdcage and how it's all put together is very study.


At the moment I have screws as the pivot pins. They'll be swapped out for 1/4 brass eventually.

Originally Posted by auscab

That is one very nice looking table!
Im commenting without having closely read every word you have posted. I’ll have to go back and read through. Edit, I did that.
Was the pie crust moulding all hand cut? How long did that take?
Are you going to replace those screws with something better looking?
And what about a Steel plate at the column base holding the three legs? Any original that hasn’t broken the column usually has one.
looking forward to seeing it polished.

Rob

Thx mate. It's thankfully turned out pretty good. Lot of work...

It's a single piece that was mounted on the lathe and turned. I started with a piece that was the maximum by lathe could take, 24", and ended up with a finished pie crust top of 23 3/8". When I turned it, my spider senses told me to let it sit for a few months... Sure enough it warped about 1/4" over it's width. Luckily I kept most of the thickness so losing the 1/2" wasn't too bad. It did warp again, but it's only just over 1/8". It started out as a plank that was 1 3/4" thick and ended up at a finished 15/16". Without knowing it this was a good thing it warped so much the first time. Having to shave so much off and accommodate the pie crust I had to make the top, not including the pie crust edge, about 7/16" thick. Since it's relatively thin, it's fairly pliable, without the risk of a crack forming. The two stretchers can easily pull the top flat, with little stress on the screws or threads. Overall, except for the lathe, it's entirely hand carved. To be honest, with what I know about the wood now, I can't believe it turned out so well. I don't remember how long it took. It would have been a couple weeks though.

Ya, the screws are going. But I won't use traditional brass. I won't get them even a 1/8" in before they snap. I'm using some antiqued black steel screws.

Been ruminating over the plate and do I need it... I'll probably go with an aluminium one so I can cut it out myself easily. The pedestal base and the point where the legs join are flat so the plate will be easy to make and fit.

Couldn't resist so I threw on a coat of shellac last night. Looked OK, but not great. Considering how the wood looks naturally, it kinda looked flat with only shellac. Been looking into what grain filler I'd use on it recently. The pours are so big, a cockroach could use them as a home, no way shellac will fill them. And I wasn't going to risk using talc as a filler medium. I know it's supposed to be a tried-and-true method going back hundreds of years for filling the grain, but I find it leaves a slight whitewashed look. And I can only see that being a lot worse with this wood and the gigantic pours it has. When I got home this afternoon, I decided to take a punt on what I did recently. So I scrounged up all the red gum dust I could generate and made a slurry out of Danish oil. I really like how it looked on the NSW Rosewood... And then proceeded to rub everything down with course steel wool and the mud. Far out, I mean FAR OUT! Did it ever make the wood come alive. There's a richness and depth that wasn't there with just shellac. I tried using boiled linseed oil in the past but I like Danish oil as it flashes off many days faster than BLO.

So now it'll sit for a week, and I'll decide from there.

I've attached two pics of what it looks like with a coat of oil and dust pushed into the pours. The wood, such as the pedestal and top, have been sitting around exposed for 14 years, and with the oil they look a spectacular coffee brown. The pics don't do the colour justice at all. It truly is gorgeous grain and colour. The newer pieces have only been exposed to the air for a week, so are still quite pinkish orange.

I'm mulling over whether I want to bother with shellac at all and instead go to a more traditional wax, and buff and polish it to a nice satin sheen. My gut feeling, after the sealer coat of shellac, is the gloss or semi-gloss look of shellac won't look good. And with all the sticky outy bits in the carvings, attacking shellac with fine steel wool to give it a satin sheen I'll end up with a lot of small bear patches.

I was having trouble opening the pictures because they are or they were to large. The latest ones in this thread came good though and opened. The ones in the new thread wouldn't.

The beauty of doing a table like this in Red Gum. Its one of the best matches for the early Dark heavy Cuban top quality Mahogany that was used on the original ones. Probably a bit heavier but a real good match.

You would not ever see brass screws under an original top on an original table of that period. Yeah they would be to weak as well. Iron screws are always seen. Hand cut with hand filed heads and hand cut slots. So making some good looking screws isn't hard . Just do the heads on some steel ones and cut the pointy bit off flat so you get a good hold all the way into the bottom of the hole. Putting screws in a top like that I like to tap the hole first with another screw some times with a T handle welded on to get a thread in there. The T handle was Just because I had the welder handy. Just a screw would do.

IMG_7676.jpg


Steel sheet is what was used under the columns but Aluminium , why not? It'd actually look nice. Specially if you hammer and peen it to shape and it gets the hand formed look. Ive used Aluminium sheet like that and it looks real good. It'll be a bright new looking bit but so what.
Its the tension of the metal that stops a leg shifting and cracking a column and while Aluminium is softer than steel the tension thing should be good . Placement of the screws or nails is the important part of that. They need to be put in the low parts to stop the metal pulling straight if a leg wanted to shift under a heavy drop or knock.

You probably know this ?

You can see how the nails in this original are using the steel in tension to stop a shift. They work brilliantly. Working in a antique repair workshop for years any table that came in with a split column never had one of these fitted. This ones been dropped and the leg broke further down with the repair fixed with more steel. Or wrought Iron as it probably was back then?

Untitledh.jpg



My understanding is Back in 1750 roughly french polishing wasn't known in England. The French method of using shellac that is. They may have had shellac to use though. I don't think anyone knows exactly because nothing has been discovered in any records and they kept everything secret. Its not until either Sheraton or was it Hepplewhite wrote something in the 1790s about an Oil and brickdust method that a little more was known I think about UK or London finishing of wood. Oil finishes were known and used . They talked about heat resistant water proof oil finishes that took a long time to apply because of the drying times.

That doesn't really matter though.

I would be definitely using shellac and finishing with a wax. Because a table that nice needs some age added I think. Not beaten up, just shaded with a darker colour to show off and highlight the carving in a nice way. And shellac works well doing that with some water colour added at the finishing stages then sealed in once its adjusted to look good. It can be totally taken off if it doesn't look good. With no harm done, if its not looking like you want it to. Maybe it doesn't need that though , I just looked at your pictures and the carving is already highlighted with some nice darkness around them . Shellac also adds to warm timbers like that because of the amber colour to it. So I like to mix flake with Blonde . Not just use straight Flake or Button because the amber Orange look can be to strong.

Ive polished Red Gum a little . A single cabriole leg I did years ago. Shellac would have no problem filling the grain by itself if your using a rubber the right way. That timber wouldn't be as open grained as Aussie Red Cedar would it ?

Rob

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

The whole squirrel cage thing is something I've never really given any thought to, having never needed to. They ain't common in my world.

But... do the bottom plates fit neatly between the two battens on the table-top when it's opened? That may add an element of robustness to the table if it's moved around while open. (I'm guessing that it's better to open and grip it high on the pillar to move, than lifting by the tabletop?)

Hmmm... they'd also assist in keeping the hinges true when opened, so it'd fold back nicely.

Skew, the squirrel cage serves a couple of purposes, I think. The original tops can be rotated, presumably so you could spin the cucumber sandwiches round to the duchess so she didn't have to exert herself by leaning over. You need a way of attaching the top to allow rotation without wobble, so someone back then came up with this idea and it took on - there are a lot of these things out there to judge by antique catalogues! It's a good solution because the depth of the cage sitting neatly on the top of the pedestal makes it very resistant to twisting. The 'hinge' on any I've seen is just a rod passing through the cleats and the (thick) top of the squirrel cage.

You can attach the top on a small table by simply screwing a thick chunk under the table top that fits over the top of the pedestal, and that's the most common method I've seen on later factory-made pedestal tables, but unless the piece is very thick, it doesn't give anywhere near as much support as a well-made squirrel cage and too often, such tops part ways with the base. Of course if you're really determined you can break any bit of furniture no matter how well it's constructed....

Rob, RRG may be a good substitute for old mahogany in colour & texture, but given the choice, I know which one I'd prefer to work with (by a million miles!).

Cheers,