Thread: Australian Red Cedar (Toona ciliata) - thoughts and ideas

I love making chairs but I get little satisfaction from repairing chairs. As a chair maker I used to get a lot of people bring me chairs for repair and, as a chair maker, I would decline and suggest new ones. I guess when you have the ability to make anew the idea of resurrection becomes much less appealing. I recall a lady bringing me 6 English oak dining chairs all riddled with borer holes and 2 of the chairs in pieces. She was most put out when I informed her they were well past their useby date.
So what is the best timber for chairs? IMHO the timber that best suits the design and purpose. Quality of any timber used needs to be high. Any defect becomes magnified when it is included in a chair, no matter what the specie.
With regard to Cedar; GOOD quality cedar works well with hand tools, machines well, glues well, durable, resists insect attack and takes a good finish. I made a Victorian style diningroom suite for a customer. She was concerned that a family friend, who regularly is a dinner guest and tips the scales at 23 stone was going to be a problem. I told her, "There are chairs and then there are chairs." I was prepaired to put my money where my mouth was. Upon delivery, who should be there? None other than Mr Big himself! Now be this by design or coincidence I have no idea and I didn't ask. Feeling brave, I invited Mr Big to deposit himself on the first chair off the truck. No problem. My courage was at its peek. I sat on his lap. Thats another 19 stone! No problem. "OK Pete, rock her back but not too far." No problem, not even a creak. I was given permission to unload the rest of the suite.
Moral of the story? Quality is everything and Don't push your luck.
With regard to balloon back chairs; IMHO the worst design since the tree stump. Inherently weak.

Originally Posted by IanW

At one point in the conversation I leaned back in the cedar balloon-back I was sitting in to make some point or other and there was an audible 'snap' and when I looked around the top of the chair was on the floor behind me!

Poorly designed - poorly made. This is a classic example of Darwinian theory in operation - survival of the fittest - it failed to survive.

One of the reasons why I like looking at antique furniture is that it has undergone a century of culling and only the best in terms of both aesthetics and engineering has survived.

• Engineering. If a piece of furniture is poorly designed and/or poorly built then it will simply break, perhaps several times, and end up as firewood. An appropriate end.
• Aesthetics. If a piece of furniture is perceived to be ugly then it will, sooner or later, be discarded on aesthetic grounds. Unfortunately, often it was philistines making this choice.

Originally Posted by rustynail

I love making chairs but I get little satisfaction from repairing chairs

Doesn't that comment apply to all furniture and to all of us?

I like designing and making and essentially regard repairing as looking for what went wrong in the designing and making process. Too often, I try to take a short cut and fix the break instead of analysing what caused the break and fixing that, or realising that any fix is only delaying the the final breakage.

With regard to balloon back chairs; IMHO the worst design since the tree stump. Inherently weak.

And the most uncomfortable.

But balloon backs date from the Georgian and Victorian eras. But if you look at contemporary pictures of how people sat on those chairs you will notice that they stuck a carrot where the sun don't shine, sat bolt upright, and never actually came in contact with the back of the chair. It was purely a decorative accoutrement. The comfort and strength of the balloon back was irrelevant.

"Purely decorative." Not exactly Graeme. It was a handle, without which it became a stool. Probably a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

.... Doesn't that comment apply to all furniture and to all of us?

Not absolutely, Graeme. I certainly dislike trying to fix something I think is poorly designed/made and moreso when I think any repairs are unlikely to last. But a couple of old pieces I've worked on were different, I was extremely interested in "reading" what the original maker had done and figuring out how they'd approached the important joinery. It was also interesting to see how they wasted no time with what wasn't important, back-boards bearing full witness to the coarse scrub plane used to 'thickness' them, for e.g. Something I would never do, but I'm just a fusspot amateur & I don't need speed....

Cheers

Originally Posted by rustynail

"Purely decorative." Not exactly Graeme. It was a handle, without which it became a stool. ...

Au contraire, Rusty. I think that you are wrong, and ... also right.

The Georgians and Victorians were smart enough to realise that if you touched the back of a balloon chair then it would break, as so graphically witnessed by Ian, an impeccable source. You could not lean against it or use it as a handle. Just ensure the servants polish it every week.

How about: The balloon back was a circular wooden sculpture appended to an upholstered stool, c.1800.