Re: [MedievalSawdust] Re:Query on Joinery
- To some extent this may be true, but to repetitively cut perfect 90 degree angles that are perfectly spaced apart is almost as difficult as cutting dovetails. As the dovetail gives you an added mechanical advantage (illustrated by a dovetailed box being capable of holding itself together pretty solidly and squarely with no glue), then for a craftsman who is capable of cutting finger joints by hand, it makes a lot of sense to go the small extra distance to cut dovetails instead. Finger joints are heavily nowadays, largely because they're much easier to cut with power tools than dovetails and modern glues aren't as susceptible to moisture.
--Alysaundre Weldon d'Ath
Barony of Adiantum, An Tir
Tracy Swanson wrote:I have built the Viking box mentioned (which is kind of a cross between a lap and single box or finger joint - I was attempting humor here), but I have not cut either a proper box joint or dovetail by hand, for both would be too much trouble, considering the fact that I have machinery that will do either one. As much as I have to do, why make work for myself? By simple deduction, it would be quicker and easier to cut straight 90-degree angles than anything else. Through experience I can say that anything that requires cutting wood at an angle other than 90 degrees takes more time and effort, regardless of if you are making an odd stage platform or a picture frame.In Magical Service,Malaki-----Original Message-----
From: medievalsawdust@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:medievalsaw dust@yahoogroups .com]On Behalf Of AlbionWood
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:44 PM
To: medievalsawdust@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MedievalSawdust] Re:Query on Joinery
If you mean the Mastermyr chest, it is certainly not finger-jointed, which is what I think you mean by "box joint". The sides are treenailed to the ends and to the bottom; the bottom is tenoned into the ends. The somewhat unusual arrangement of notching the ends and sides together is an odd feature, but clearly nothing like a box joint.
Have you actually cut a box joint by hand? If so, why? (And if not, then how can you be so sure it is quicker and easier to cut than a dovetail?)
Tracy Swanson wrote:I don't know, what about the period Viking box - what was the joining method but one big box joint? Box joints are quicker because you don't have to fiddle with the funky angles that a dovetail would entail (pardon the pun). It is merely a 90 degree, which would be easier to cut and file smooth than a dovetail would.Just a thought... ; )In Magical Service,Malaki-----Original Message-----
From: medievalsawdust@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:medievalsawd ust@yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of Craig Robert Pierpont
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:56 AM
To: medievalsawdust@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [MedievalSawdust] Re:Query on Joinery
The finger joint is a product of the process. The finger joint is a result of the invention of the circular saw and other woodworking stuff not developed until long after the medieval period.
- Why, if I have never cut either joint by hand, am I making comments on
their relative difficulty? Because I have cut enough joinery (by hand &
machine) and carved enough wood to know the relative difficulty between
the execution of the two joints.
No, the box joint is not period - yes, the dovetail is. That question
has been answered repeatedly over the last several days. The question
of whether the box or dovetail was easier to cut by hand was then
posed, to which I thought I would interject a bit of humor. Had I known
that I would then be called on my "experience" as to whether or not I
was quallified to answer the question (regardless of my experience in
working and carving wood), I would have kept my fingers off of the
keyboard and allowed you to continue to argue this non-period question
Argue on, I'll not interject again.