Table Top Board Width

[Dovetail]

I'm making a floating top sofa table from Black Wattle.

The width of the top will be 295mm. I don't have sufficient timber to join three or even two equal width boards together to achieve this width but I do have two of unequal width.

Here's the question: The two boards I have are different widths. The wider one has a lovely grain pattern that will certainly be a feature but using it as is will mean that one board will be say, 175mm wide and the other 120mm. In the past I have always tried to make table (cabinet) tops with boards of pretty much the same width. Would it be an acceptable woodworking technique to use the boards as is?

Cheers

Brian

[chambezio]

Brian, I would be guided by the grain of the boards. For instance, you may feature all of the widest one then cut another 2 to make the grain/top "look right". It won't matter if the boards are of unequal width, just go with what gives the best appearance.

[wood hacker]

To keep some sense of symetry I'd rip the smaller board in half and use it either side of the wider board.

[elanjacobs]

I like this idea

In a dining table with many boards I'd say you could get away with it, but if there's just the two of them, I don't think it would look right to have them uneven.

[Glenn.Visca]

What they said ... Rip the narrow one and use either side ... As long as it looks right.

[Dovetail]

Thanks for the responses.

I had intended to rip the narrower board down the middle and use the halves either side of the 'prime' board but as nature would have it, there is a small defect (knot - sap vein) right in the centre of it! But I agree, one broad board and one narrow board would unbalance the appearance and unfortunately, the narrower board doesn't have the same excitement figure-wise the broader one has so it would indeed look unbalanced.

I'm reminded that wood is a 'living thing' so defects are to be expected and unless they are distractingly ugly, go with the flow...

The reason for me asking the question in the first place is that the under-rail to which the top will be screwed/stabilised has three screw holes (with appropriate clearances) passing through them through which the hold down screws pass and using the boards as above will mean that all the screws will fix into the centre (wider) board only. Perhaps the two side boards will be narrow enough not to cause me movement grief later? Or, perhaps I should fit a couple of battens as well and not rely totally on the screws through the under-rails for dynamic stability?

[rod1949]

What is a "floating top sofa table"?

[ian]

Thanks for the responses.

I had intended to rip the narrower board down the middle and use the halves either side of the 'prime' board but as nature would have it, there is a small defect (knot - sap vein) right in the centre of it! But I agree, one broad board and one narrow board would unbalance the appearance and unfortunately, the narrower board doesn't have the same excitement figure-wise the broader one has so it would indeed look unbalanced.

I'm reminded that wood is a 'living thing' so defects are to be expected and unless they are distractingly ugly, go with the flow...

The reason for me asking the question in the first place is that the under-rail to which the top will be screwed/stabilised has three screw holes (with appropriate clearances) passing through them through which the hold down screws pass and using the boards as above will mean that all the screws will fix into the centre (wider) board only. Perhaps the two side boards will be narrow enough not to cause me movement grief later? Or, perhaps I should fit a couple of battens as well and not rely totally on the screws through the under-rails for dynamic stability?

looking at the two boards in the "flesh" may render the following ...

but have you considered splitting the prime board and using it to edge the narrower one? rather like a bold frame around a rather plain picture


if you jointing and gluing is up to par, the glued-up board should behave as though it is a single piece, so your screw pattern shoudl work.

[Dovetail]

Rod1949, this is an example of a floating top sofa table. The top is not directly attached to the front, side and back rails (aprons).



55587.861155.jpg

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

The reason for me asking the question in the first place is that the under-rail to which the top will be screwed/stabilised has three screw holes (with appropriate clearances) passing through them through which the hold down screws pass and using the boards as above will mean that all the screws will fix into the centre (wider) board only. Perhaps the two side boards will be narrow enough not to cause me movement grief later? Or, perhaps I should fit a couple of battens as well and not rely totally on the screws through the under-rails for dynamic stability?

If you're comfortable with jointing operations, there's nothing that says you have to align the boards along the long (or even the short) axis.

You could position them diagonally, for example...

[labr@]

Or you could cut the wider board into 3 (eg a 70 and two 50s) and the narrower board in two (60 each) and mix them up for a more random / less bold look. Of course the particular pieces you have may not suit this but it's another option to consider.

[Dovetail]

Thanks for the responses and advice.

Part of the problem has been that the wider of the boards I had available shows lovely figure which I wanted to feature. Dividing that board was only ever going to be a last ditch fix. I did consider altering the orientation of the boards e.g. diagonal, across the width etc., but I'm a bit too far off experimenting when, as usual, my timber stock is limited. Maybe some other time.

Normally, I have no concerns with jointing and certainly on smaller jobs, I've been happy to do this by hand - you know, two boards ganged together and a nice plane, but I have also done this on the jointer - one board at a time in the correct orientation and it has worked well. Because the length of these boards is about 1300mm, I wasn't confident to hand joint them so took them to the jointer. Disaster! For some reason, I was jointing a taper along the length of the board directly related to the number of times I ran the timber over the knives. Clearly, I have an 'organic' error i.e. caused by my incompetence. But I don't know why... So it was back to the best I could do by hand. Not perfect but they will pass muster.

Fortunately, it appears I've dodged a bullet here because I've ended up with just enough width in the boards to have the wider board in the middle with narrower boards on either side. Glue-up today.

[Dovetail]

Well, here is an image of the top cut to size but not yet complete - I want to put a slight radius on the ends.

As it turns out, I'm rather disappointed. My intention to feature the figure on the centre board is somewhat reduced by the board on the top of the image, the one with the knot that always promised to be a PITA but I thought I could rip the board just missing the knot but that was all put to bed when I mucked up the lower board by jointing a taper on it. That top board being much paler really detracts from my intention.

Anyway, I'll see what it looks like once oiled and if I'm still unhappy when it is complete, I'll try to source some more black wattle and have another go.

IMG_0775.jpg

[Christos]

I certainly don't want to cause further distress and please don't take this as anything else other than an observation.

It is quite a colour contrast from the top board to the middle board. Who knows it might just grow on you.

[Glenn.Visca]

I don't think it looks too bad at all ! You could try staining just the light board to match the colour on the rest. It would take some mucking around ... But that's what he old finishers did to blend out significant colour variation. Joints look pretty good ! [emoji108]