I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As an
idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no set
design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no way to
carry objects that size through the house, I would need to make two
boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on site. That
would probably necessitate installing the face frame on site as well.
My question involves materials. The wardrobes would be tall, well above
eye-level, and would be located in two corners of the room. As such, the
only surfaces that would show would be the doors, the face frame and one
side of each unit.
I've taken an awful long time to get decent results finishing much
smaller projects. I haven't got the time or gumption to take on the
finishing of something as big as this. So I'm considering prefinished
plywood, or possibly even melamine for the basic boxes, with a
prefinished ply panel on the visible side. Is melamine a nighmare for a
relative novice?
As for the doors, I'm not sure what to do yet. We have a couple of
similar wardrobes that have "faux" panel doors made of flat 3/4" ply
with 2"x1/4" strips appliqued on to simulate vertical 3-panel doors. (I
didn't build them).
I did build some simple panel doors for another project, but they were a
good bit smaller. I could conceivably use thin prefinished ply with
solid frames. Either way I would somehow need to finish the face frames
and door frames (and perhaps some molding at the top and bottom)for a
reasonable match, and without getting any of the finish on the
prefinished material. Presumably I'd finish those pieces before
installing them. I'm wondering if a deliberate contrast might be easier
for me to accomplish than a "match".
I'm asking for basic pointers, pros and cons, pitfalls a weekend warrior
like me is likely to stumble into, etc. My goal is to make something
functional and decent-looking in a reasonable amount of time.
As always, thanks in advance.
On 9/14/2012 8:32 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> My fear was that I'd have trouble keeping the router square with only a
> 1.5" surface for the plate to ride on. Someone with more skill and
> confidence might not have that problem. That notwithstanding, the plane
> did a nice job and I wouldn't hesitate to do it that way again.
That's where a laminate trimmer comes in handy, like the Bosch Colt.
My problem with using a plane on plywood banding is the sheer thinness
of veneer in today's plywood. Even with my sharp, low angle, Veritas
block plane, I've knicked about as much veneer as I've gouged with a
router down through the years ... sometimes the grain just works against
you.
That said, I trimmed all the banding on these parts yesterday with a top
bearing, flush trim, bit in the router table, with a split fence and
featherboard:
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopCustomMedicineCabinets#5787295307276757538
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods#5788049653985780754
Much less chance of a screw-up when you're on a deadline, out of
material, and with no spare parts that would take hours to re-cut if you
slipped. ... and that is ALWAYS when it happens.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Greg Guarino wrote:
>
> I've taken an awful long time to get decent results finishing much
> smaller projects. I haven't got the time or gumption to take on the
> finishing of something as big as this. So I'm considering prefinished
> plywood, or possibly even melamine for the basic boxes, with a
> prefinished ply panel on the visible side. Is melamine a nighmare for
> a relative novice?
>
I think pre-finished is going to require just as much effort Greg - or maybe
more. You'll have to apply a veneer of some sort of tape to finish the
edges, and that will require work to finish off. I think you'll end up
finding that simple sanding and applying stain and poly will be as simple an
approach as any alternative. And - it will last. It's really not as much
work as it may seem to you at first blush.
> As for the doors, I'm not sure what to do yet. We have a couple of
> similar wardrobes that have "faux" panel doors made of flat 3/4" ply
> with 2"x1/4" strips appliqued on to simulate vertical 3-panel doors.
> (I didn't build them).
Well - you could try to replicate them, but you'll still be back to that
finishing stuff I spoke of above.
>
> I did build some simple panel doors for another project, but they
> were a good bit smaller. I could conceivably use thin prefinished ply
> with solid frames.
Just not understanding your preference for prefinished ply. You still have
to dress up the edges after you cut it - right?
> Either way I would somehow need to finish the face
> frames and door frames (and perhaps some molding at the top and
> bottom)for a reasonable match, and without getting any of the finish
> on the prefinished material.
Ergo the simple route of just finishing the entire project. It's not as
much as you may fear it is.
> Presumably I'd finish those pieces before
> installing them. I'm wondering if a deliberate contrast might be
> easier for me to accomplish than a "match".
If you want it to look like it does not match... and then you can try to
fool people by telling them you did that intentionally... It's all a matter
of taste though. I've seen some top notch woodworkers turn out pieces in
contrasting woods. I always thought that look was horrible, but... it's a
matter of taste.
>
> I'm asking for basic pointers, pros and cons, pitfalls a weekend
> warrior like me is likely to stumble into, etc. My goal is to make
> something functional and decent-looking in a reasonable amount of
> time.
Just look at what your defintion of "a reasonable amount of time" is. Don't
sell it short. So what if it takes you a week of your spare time to get it
done? Is it more important to get it done in an evening? It will certainly
look like that's what you did if you go that route. Sometimes we get
ourselves psyched into a position even before we start a project...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
dpb wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 8:23 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 9/12/2012 6:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> 1. You should be able to move an object that size through normal
>>> interior doors. Moving might fail, though, if you have tight
>>> corners such as a stairway.
>>>
>>
>> Yup. That's what I've got.
> ...
>
> The suggestion is to have it short enough it'll clear any obstruction
> in the fully upright uncomfortable position...
I disagree. Twisting and turning something like that to clear is not such
an ordeal. It's sorta normal.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Greg Guarino" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As an
idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no set
design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no way to
carry objects that size through the house, I would need to make two
boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on site. That
would probably necessitate installing the face frame on site as well.
Greg.. This brings back memories. Building kitchen cabinets for our new
house. Same dimensions as your cabinet. Ceiling height was 84 inches. Got it
into the kitchen OK. Went to stand it up. No go. Forgot the top to bottom
diagonal was more than 84 inches. Cut height down and made a toe kick
section to slide under. Lesson learned. this was in 1970. I still have a lot
to learn and this site is great learning from the experts. WW
Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 9/12/2012 6:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> 1. You should be able to move an object that size through normal
>> interior doors. Moving might fail, though, if you have tight corners
>> such as a stairway.
>>
>
> Yup. That's what I've got.
Take a second look. Are you certain they won't navigate your openings, or
are you worried that they won't. Most objects will with a little twisting
and turning. Think about how those guys deliver furniture to every kind of
house imaginable. I'll bet you can get your pieces to where you need...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:k2t1nd$ci4$1@dont-
email.me:
>
> I'm probably better at geometry than I am at woodworking. My ceiling is
> 8'. I figure to make the wardrobes well short of that.
>
This is where making a mock up might come in handy. If you take two pieces
of cardboard, one to represent the base and one to represent the largest
side, and move it through the area you'll get a feel for how it will fit.
If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
Amy Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:c308df73-e579-4d12-
[email protected]:
> On Sep 13, 5:59 pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
>> fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
>> disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
>
> There's something I hadn't thought of. Any pointers to a source?
I've only seen them in catalogs (and other flat-pack furniture), but it's
worth checking Lee Valley.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On 9/14/2012 7:25 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Don't neglect attaching them to the wall or doing something else to prevent
> their tipping.
+1
I passed on a stand-alone cabinet job last year because the prospective
client poo-poohed the idea of anti-tip measures ... she had one small
boy, and another in the oven. I can't afford to risk what's taken years
to build defending a liability suit, insurance or no.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 9/13/2012 8:13 PM, Amy Guarino wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:59 pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
>> fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
>> disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
>
> There's something I hadn't thought of. Any pointers to a source?
These are, above and beyond the pale, the coolest thing going these days
... if you can find/afford them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaN-Emvizq8
http://swissinvis.com/
The latter will give you North America contact info.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>On 9/14/2012 8:32 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> My fear was that I'd have trouble keeping the router square with only a
>> 1.5" surface for the plate to ride on. Someone with more skill and
>> confidence might not have that problem. That notwithstanding, the plane
>> did a nice job and I wouldn't hesitate to do it that way again.
>
>That's where a laminate trimmer comes in handy, like the Bosch Colt.
>
>My problem with using a plane on plywood banding is the sheer thinness
>of veneer in today's plywood. Even with my sharp, low angle, Veritas
>block plane, I've knicked about as much veneer as I've gouged with a
>router down through the years ... sometimes the grain just works against
>you.
I usually use a smooth or block plane to knock the banding down to
a RCH of the plywood, then use a card scraper to finish up. The
probability of tear-out on the ply is much less.
scott
Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
email.me:
Snip
I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple plywood, and
some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". It was a pain to get them down to
be even on both sides with the plywood. The iron-on maple banding veneer
was much easier. Finished with blondest shellac as a seal coat, plus a
couple more coats. Then shellac- alkyd(?)poly mix, and finally poly-
pastewax mix with a touch of shellac. The latter a couple of coats. Then
rubbing, and the finish is looking like it will last.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
>> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple plywood,
>> and some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". It was a pain to get them
>> down to be even on both sides with the plywood.
>
> I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my
> modest knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set the
> fence on the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I couldn't
> accidentally cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set the depth
> stop so that the plane would cut the edge piece exactly flush with the
> surface of the ply. Someone with more developed skills might be able
> to do this by "feel", but it worked nicely for me.
Great idea for a needed tool I don't yet have! Thanks!! Which brand and
model do you have?
> The iron-on maple banding veneer
>> was much easier. Finished with blondest shellac as a seal coat, plus
>> a couple more coats. Then shellac- alkyd(?)poly mix, and finally
>> poly- pastewax mix with a touch of shellac. The latter a couple of
>> coats. Then rubbing, and the finish is looking like it will last.
>>
>
> I have to say, that looks like an argument for prefinished ply, at
> least for a busy guy with limited skills. I count six or seven steps,
> something I might try on a smaller project, but not on this one.
Well, I do take my (retired) time, that is true, but shellac dries in
minutes, so several caots go on really fast. The other coats don't take
that much time either. So for me a little more time is fine, versus the
(likely) expense of prefinished ply. Although, maple ply of good quaity
isn't exactly cheap.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Amy Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in
news:f974c191-b5c5-415b-88b9-ca0b0d72b62e@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 13, 5:24 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:[email protected]
> e:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
>> >> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote innews:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
>> >> email.me:
>>
>> >> Snip
>>
>> >> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple
>> >> plywood, and some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". It was a pain
>> >> to get the
> m
>> >> down to be even on both sides with the plywood.
>>
>> > I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my
>> > modest knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set
>> > the fence on the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I
>> > couldn't accidentally cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set
>> > the depth stop so that the plane would cut the edge piece exactly
>> > flush with the surface of the ply. Someone with more developed
>> > skills might be able to do this by "feel", but it worked nicely for
>> > me.
>>
>> Great idea for a needed tool I don't yet have! Thanks!! Which brand
> and
>> model do you have?
>
> This one:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/6980398958/lightbox/
>
> It's a Stanley #78, inherited from my Dad, who's still around but not
> using such things anymore. You can use the right arrow key to see some
> more views.
Looks BEAUTIFUL!! And the other pics are great as well, at least the
ones I looked at!
>> > The iron-on maple banding veneer
>> >> was much easier. Finished with blondest shellac as a seal coat,
>> >> plus
>> >> a couple more coats. Then shellac- alkyd(?)poly mix, and finally
>> >> poly- pastewax mix with a touch of shellac. The latter a couple
>> >> of coats. Then rubbing, and the finish is looking like it will
>> >> last.
>>
>> > I have to say, that looks like an argument for prefinished ply, at
>> > least for a busy guy with limited skills. I count six or seven
>> > steps, something I might try on a smaller project, but not on this
>> > one.
>>
>> Well, I do take my (retired) time, that is true, but shellac dries in
>> minutes, so several caots go on really fast. The other coats don't
>> take that much time either. So for me a little more time is fine,
>> versus the (likely) expense of prefinished ply. Although, maple ply
>> of good quality isn't exactly cheap.
>
> What do you do between coats?
FB, other computer stuff, just being retired.
As far as what I do between coats on the wood, with the coats of shellac,
nothing. Light sanding later on, and with the pastewax final coats,
apply with #0000 steel wool, or similar non-steel, drying for a half-1
hour, then buffing with a car buffer (something Sears sold me decades
ago).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/13/2012 8:13 PM, Amy Guarino wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 5:59 pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
>>> fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
>>> disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
>>
>> There's something I hadn't thought of. Any pointers to a source?
>
> These are, above and beyond the pale, the coolest thing going these
> days ... if you can find/afford them:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaN-Emvizq8
>
> http://swissinvis.com/
>
> The latter will give you North America contact info.
Didn't look at the second link. Is this the same as what I had seen
before? <grin> Have you any idea of the costs?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sep 13, 9:13=A0pm, Amy Guarino <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:59=A0pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
> > fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
> > disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
>
> There's something I hadn't thought of. Any pointers to a source?
Sorry for the name confusion, more than one person in our family uses
this computer
On Sep 13, 5:59=A0pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
> fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
> disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
There's something I hadn't thought of. Any pointers to a source?
Greg Guarino wrote:
>
> Assuming I use ply, finished or not, I'll need to dress up the edges.
> I had planned on a face frame (solid wood). But that would mean
> finishing a few dozen feet of narrow stock, as opposed to doing that
> *in addition* to sanding and finishing the better part of five or six
> sheets of unfinished ply. (much of it on both sides)
>
Ok - I may have misunderstood your original position. I did not realize you
were thinking of building a face frame. For the sides, I would agree on a
nice ply. Pre-finished? Still don't know I'd go there. It takes only
minutes to sand a sheet and to apply a finish that will match your frames.
It's not like we're talking about a lot of extra work.
> I think you'll end up
>> finding that simple sanding and applying stain and poly will be as
>> simple an approach as any alternative. And - it will last.
>
> Is it your opinion that the finish on prefinished ply is less durable?
No - not really. I think I threw that last comment in as a rhetorical
statement. I can do that sometimes...
>
> It's really not as much
>> work as it may seem to you at first blush.
>
> My skills are modest, but I've had a small amount of experience. This
> would be four or five times the surface area of anything I've done
> before, and those smaller projects took a very long time. Of course, I
> was doing multiple coats, with sanding or steel wool in-between. I
> can't imagine doing that on such a large project, especially on the
> inside. I'm sure that the people that made our other armoires used a
> sprayer, but that's not an option for me.
Understand. It will indeed take a little time, but if you think about it,
it's really not all that much time. Run the numbers (time wise) before you
let yourself get too worried about what it may require. I'll bet you'll be
surprised.
>>
>> Just not understanding your preference for prefinished ply. You
>> still have to dress up the edges after you cut it - right?
>
> As I would with unfinished ply, but the bulk of the project would need
> no finishing.
So - if you are building face frames, it's really not an issue since the
edges of the ply will marry to the back side of the face frames - and be
unseen.
>
> In my place, what method would you use? How many coats, and of what
> product? I have not tried wiping poly yet, which I believe might make
> sanding between coats unnecessary, but I hear you need a bunch of
> coats.
I don't use wiping poly. Leon is a great source of expertise on that. Just
be careful when taking Leon's advise. He'll steer you to some expensive
Festool tool that will do the job better, cleaner and... well... more
expensively...
I brush on. Then, I scuff it the next day, and put on a second coat. After
that - it gets nailed. Scuffing takes minutes. it's not a big job.
>
> I'm afraid you overestimate my skill and efficiency. I'd be lucky to
> cut and assemble the units in a few days. But the finishing has
> always been the most time-consuming part.
Yup - it is. Get used to that. Perhaps you can even fool yourself into
believing it is the most fun part - but that's just fooling one's self!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sep 13, 9:17=A0pm, Amy Guarino <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:24=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote innews:k2tgd7$giu$1@dont-email=
.me:
>
> > > On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
> > >> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote innews:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
> > >> email.me:
>
> > >> Snip
>
> > >> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple plywood=
,
> > >> and some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". =A0It was a pain to get t=
hem
> > >> down to be even on both sides with the plywood.
>
> > > I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my
> > > modest knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set the
> > > fence on the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I couldn't
> > > accidentally cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set the depth
> > > stop so that the plane would cut the edge piece exactly flush with th=
e
> > > surface of the ply. Someone with more developed skills might be able
> > > to do this by "feel", but it worked nicely for me.
>
> > Great idea for a needed tool I don't yet have! =A0Thanks!! =A0Which bra=
nd and
> > model do you have?
>
> This one:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/6980398958/lightbox/
>
> It's a Stanley #78, inherited from my Dad, who's still around but not
> using such things anymore. You can use the right arrow key to see some
> more views.
>
> > > The iron-on maple banding veneer
> > >> was much easier. =A0Finished with blondest shellac as a seal coat, p=
lus
> > >> a couple more coats. =A0Then shellac- alkyd(?)poly mix, and finally
> > >> poly- pastewax mix with a touch of shellac. =A0The latter a couple o=
f
> > >> coats. =A0Then rubbing, and the finish is looking like it will last.
>
> > > I have to say, that looks like an argument for prefinished ply, at
> > > least for a busy guy with limited skills. I count six or seven steps,
> > > something I might try on a smaller project, but not on this one.
>
> > Well, I do take my (retired) time, that is true, but shellac dries in
> > minutes, so several caots go on really fast. =A0The other coats don't t=
ake
> > that much time either. =A0So for me a little more time is fine, versus =
the
> > (likely) expense of prefinished ply. =A0Although, maple ply of good qua=
ity
> > isn't exactly cheap.
>
> What do you do between coats?
Sorry for the name confusion, more than one person in our family uses
this computer
On Sep 13, 5:24=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]=
e:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
> >> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote innews:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
> >> email.me:
>
> >> Snip
>
> >> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple plywood,
> >> and some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". =A0It was a pain to get the=
m
> >> down to be even on both sides with the plywood.
>
> > I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my
> > modest knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set the
> > fence on the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I couldn't
> > accidentally cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set the depth
> > stop so that the plane would cut the edge piece exactly flush with the
> > surface of the ply. Someone with more developed skills might be able
> > to do this by "feel", but it worked nicely for me.
>
> Great idea for a needed tool I don't yet have! =A0Thanks!! =A0Which brand=
and
> model do you have?
This one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/6980398958/lightbox/
It's a Stanley #78, inherited from my Dad, who's still around but not
using such things anymore. You can use the right arrow key to see some
more views.
> > The iron-on maple banding veneer
> >> was much easier. =A0Finished with blondest shellac as a seal coat, plu=
s
> >> a couple more coats. =A0Then shellac- alkyd(?)poly mix, and finally
> >> poly- pastewax mix with a touch of shellac. =A0The latter a couple of
> >> coats. =A0Then rubbing, and the finish is looking like it will last.
>
> > I have to say, that looks like an argument for prefinished ply, at
> > least for a busy guy with limited skills. I count six or seven steps,
> > something I might try on a smaller project, but not on this one.
>
> Well, I do take my (retired) time, that is true, but shellac dries in
> minutes, so several caots go on really fast. =A0The other coats don't tak=
e
> that much time either. =A0So for me a little more time is fine, versus th=
e
> (likely) expense of prefinished ply. =A0Although, maple ply of good quait=
y
> isn't exactly cheap.
What do you do between coats?
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:13:22 -0700 (PDT), Amy Guarino
>> If size is still a concern, there's all kinds of "knock down" style
>> fasteners that will allow you to finish the project in the shop,
>> disassemble it and reassemble in the house.
>
>There's something I hadn't thought of. Any pointers to a source?
Do an item search for "knock".
http://www.leevalley.com/en/hardware/Search.aspx?action=n
Greg Guarino wrote:
> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As
> an idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no
> set design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no
> way to carry objects that size through the house, I would need to
> make two boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on
> site. That would probably necessitate installing the face frame on
> site as well.
> My question involves materials. The wardrobes would be tall, well
> above eye-level, and would be located in two corners of the room. As
> such, the only surfaces that would show would be the doors, the face
> frame and one side of each unit.
>
> I've taken an awful long time to get decent results finishing much
> smaller projects. I haven't got the time or gumption to take on the
> finishing of something as big as this. So I'm considering prefinished
> plywood, or possibly even melamine for the basic boxes, with a
> prefinished ply panel on the visible side. Is melamine a nighmare for
> a relative novice?
>
> As for the doors, I'm not sure what to do yet. We have a couple of
> similar wardrobes that have "faux" panel doors made of flat 3/4" ply
> with 2"x1/4" strips appliqued on to simulate vertical 3-panel doors.
> (I didn't build them).
>
> I did build some simple panel doors for another project, but they
> were a good bit smaller. I could conceivably use thin prefinished ply
> with solid frames. Either way I would somehow need to finish the face
> frames and door frames (and perhaps some molding at the top and
> bottom)for a reasonable match, and without getting any of the finish
> on the prefinished material. Presumably I'd finish those pieces before
> installing them. I'm wondering if a deliberate contrast might be
> easier for me to accomplish than a "match".
>
> I'm asking for basic pointers, pros and cons, pitfalls a weekend
> warrior like me is likely to stumble into, etc. My goal is to make
> something functional and decent-looking in a reasonable amount of
> time.
> As always, thanks in advance.
1. You should be able to move an object that size through normal interior
doors. Moving might fail, though, if you have tight corners such as a
stairway.
2. You raise some interesting questions. If it were me, I'd scour the web
for wardrobe plans. No sense trying to be a pioneer or re-invent the wheels.
I've gotten some terrific ideas from looking at what others have done.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:40:43 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
> I think you'll end
> up finding that simple sanding and applying stain and poly will be as
> simple an approach as any alternative.
Or, if the wood itself looks good (walnut, maple, or cherry plywood),
just some wipe-on poly or shellac wiped on with a pad is hard to mess up.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
Greg Guarino wrote:
> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As
> an idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no
> set design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no
> way to carry objects that size through the house, I would need to
> make two boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on
> site. That would probably necessitate installing the face frame on
> site as well.
If you reduce the height to less than 80" I would think you could get them
through the house (assuming standard door height). If you are worried about
the weight, roll them on dowels or lengths of PVC pipe.
__________________
> My question involves materials. The wardrobes would be tall, well
> above eye-level, and would be located in two corners of the room. As
> such, the only surfaces that would show would be the doors, the face
> frame and one side of each unit.
>
> I've taken an awful long time to get decent results finishing much
> smaller projects. I haven't got the time or gumption to take on the
> finishing of something as big as this. So I'm considering prefinished
> plywood, or possibly even melamine for the basic boxes, with a
> prefinished ply panel on the visible side. Is melamine a nighmare for
> a relative novice?
Melamine isn't much different than ply. Both tend to chip when crosscut,
the mel in any direction. Both need something applied to visible edges.
One can mitigate the chipping by joining with tongues into dados; IOW, hide
it. I use 1/2" wide tongues with 1/8" shoulders into 3/8" deep dados or
rabbets.
The iron on tape for mel board is easy to apply.
___________________
> As for the doors, I'm not sure what to do yet. We have a couple of
> similar wardrobes that have "faux" panel doors made of flat 3/4" ply
> with 2"x1/4" strips appliqued on to simulate vertical 3-panel doors.
> (I didn't build them).
>
> I did build some simple panel doors for another project, but they
> were a good bit smaller.
You are going to make two boxes, stacked so make doors for each box. That
would be simpler than trying to make 84" doors. Just make one box high
enough to hang whatever you want to hang.
_____________
> I could conceivably use thin prefinished ply
> with solid frames. Either way I would somehow need to finish the face
> frames and door frames (and perhaps some molding at the top and
> bottom)for a reasonable match, and without getting any of the finish
> on the prefinished material. Presumably I'd finish those pieces before
> installing them. I'm wondering if a deliberate contrast might be
> easier for me to accomplish than a "match".
Masking tape and reasonable care keep finish off of adjacent areas.
_________________
> I'm asking for basic pointers, pros and cons, pitfalls a weekend
> warrior like me is likely to stumble into, etc. My goal is to make
> something functional and decent-looking in a reasonable amount of
> time.
We have two large walk in closets, his and hers. Mostly, they are for
hanging but I made a wardrobe with shelves for each. They are about the
size of yours but are about 24" shorter.
I used eastern red cedar for the cases...easy to work, relatively
inexpensive and smells good. And, no reason to finish it (especially
inside). I used butternut for the face frames and doors as I had it but
there is no reason I couldn't have used the cedar. Had I used cedar I would
have probably used an acrylic sealer like Seal-Krete on the outside of
doors/FF just to help them shed finger oils and dust.
Using lumber, you have to glue up the boards to make the panels. I don't
find that much more time consuming than messing with ply wood and its ugly
edges. One can also make solid, overlay doors, much easier than frame &
panel and they look fine.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 9/12/2012 6:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> 1. You should be able to move an object that size through normal interior
> doors. Moving might fail, though, if you have tight corners such as a
> stairway.
>
Yup. That's what I've got.
> 2. You raise some interesting questions. If it were me, I'd scour the web
> for wardrobe plans. No sense trying to be a pioneer or re-invent the wheels.
> I've gotten some terrific ideas from looking at what others have done.
Sounds like a good idea.
dadiOH wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As
>> an idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no
>> set design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no
>> way to carry objects that size through the house, I would need to
>> make two boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on
>> site. That would probably necessitate installing the face frame on
>> site as well.
>
> If you reduce the height to less than 80" I would think you could get
> them through the house (assuming standard door height). If you are
> worried about the weight, roll them on dowels or lengths of PVC pipe.
> __________________
>
>> My question involves materials. The wardrobes would be tall, well
>> above eye-level, and would be located in two corners of the room. As
>> such, the only surfaces that would show would be the doors, the face
>> frame and one side of each unit.
>>
>> I've taken an awful long time to get decent results finishing much
>> smaller projects. I haven't got the time or gumption to take on the
>> finishing of something as big as this. So I'm considering prefinished
>> plywood, or possibly even melamine for the basic boxes, with a
>> prefinished ply panel on the visible side. Is melamine a nighmare for
>> a relative novice?
>
> Melamine isn't much different than ply. Both tend to chip when
> crosscut, the mel in any direction. Both need something applied to
> visible edges.
> One can mitigate the chipping by joining with tongues into dados;
> IOW, hide it. I use 1/2" wide tongues with 1/8" shoulders into 3/8"
> deep dados or rabbets.
>
> The iron on tape for mel board is easy to apply.
> ___________________
>
>> As for the doors, I'm not sure what to do yet. We have a couple of
>> similar wardrobes that have "faux" panel doors made of flat 3/4" ply
>> with 2"x1/4" strips appliqued on to simulate vertical 3-panel doors.
>> (I didn't build them).
>>
>> I did build some simple panel doors for another project, but they
>> were a good bit smaller.
>
> You are going to make two boxes, stacked so make doors for each box. That
> would be simpler than trying to make 84" doors. Just make one
> box high enough to hang whatever you want to hang.
> _____________
>
>> I could conceivably use thin prefinished ply
>> with solid frames. Either way I would somehow need to finish the face
>> frames and door frames (and perhaps some molding at the top and
>> bottom)for a reasonable match, and without getting any of the finish
>> on the prefinished material. Presumably I'd finish those pieces
>> before installing them. I'm wondering if a deliberate contrast might
>> be easier for me to accomplish than a "match".
>
> Masking tape and reasonable care keep finish off of adjacent areas.
> _________________
>
>> I'm asking for basic pointers, pros and cons, pitfalls a weekend
>> warrior like me is likely to stumble into, etc. My goal is to make
>> something functional and decent-looking in a reasonable amount of
>> time.
>
> We have two large walk in closets, his and hers. Mostly, they are for
> hanging but I made a wardrobe with shelves for each. They are about
> the size of yours but are about 24" shorter.
>
> I used eastern red cedar for the cases...easy to work, relatively
> inexpensive and smells good. And, no reason to finish it (especially
> inside). I used butternut for the face frames and doors as I had it
> but there is no reason I couldn't have used the cedar. Had I used
> cedar I would have probably used an acrylic sealer like Seal-Krete on
> the outside of doors/FF just to help them shed finger oils and dust.
>
> Using lumber, you have to glue up the boards to make the panels. I
> don't find that much more time consuming than messing with ply wood
> and its ugly edges. One can also make solid, overlay doors, much
> easier than frame & panel and they look fine.
Another easy way to finish sheet goods is with wallpaper. Can't do that on
mel but can on particle board. Outside, an applied molding can make it look
like a panel.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 9/12/2012 6:40 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>>
>> I've taken an awful long time to get decent results finishing much
>> smaller projects. I haven't got the time or gumption to take on the
>> finishing of something as big as this. So I'm considering prefinished
>> plywood, or possibly even melamine for the basic boxes, with a
>> prefinished ply panel on the visible side. Is melamine a nighmare for
>> a relative novice?
>>
>
> I think pre-finished is going to require just as much effort Greg - or maybe
> more. You'll have to apply a veneer of some sort of tape to finish the
> edges, and that will require work to finish off.
Assuming I use ply, finished or not, I'll need to dress up the edges. I
had planned on a face frame (solid wood). But that would mean finishing
a few dozen feet of narrow stock, as opposed to doing that *in addition*
to sanding and finishing the better part of five or six sheets of
unfinished ply. (much of it on both sides)
I think you'll end up
> finding that simple sanding and applying stain and poly will be as simple an
> approach as any alternative. And - it will last.
Is it your opinion that the finish on prefinished ply is less durable?
It's really not as much
> work as it may seem to you at first blush.
My skills are modest, but I've had a small amount of experience. This
would be four or five times the surface area of anything I've done
before, and those smaller projects took a very long time. Of course, I
was doing multiple coats, with sanding or steel wool in-between. I can't
imagine doing that on such a large project, especially on the inside.
I'm sure that the people that made our other armoires used a sprayer,
but that's not an option for me.
>> As for the doors, I'm not sure what to do yet. We have a couple of
>> similar wardrobes that have "faux" panel doors made of flat 3/4" ply
>> with 2"x1/4" strips appliqued on to simulate vertical 3-panel doors.
>> (I didn't build them).
>
> Well - you could try to replicate them, but you'll still be back to that
> finishing stuff I spoke of above.
>
>>
>> I did build some simple panel doors for another project, but they
>> were a good bit smaller. I could conceivably use thin prefinished ply
>> with solid frames.
>
> Just not understanding your preference for prefinished ply. You still have
> to dress up the edges after you cut it - right?
As I would with unfinished ply, but the bulk of the project would need
no finishing.
>> Either way I would somehow need to finish the face
>> frames and door frames (and perhaps some molding at the top and
>> bottom)for a reasonable match, and without getting any of the finish
>> on the prefinished material.
>
> Ergo the simple route of just finishing the entire project. It's not as
> much as you may fear it is.
In my place, what method would you use? How many coats, and of what
product? I have not tried wiping poly yet, which I believe might make
sanding between coats unnecessary, but I hear you need a bunch of coats.
>> Presumably I'd finish those pieces before
>> installing them. I'm wondering if a deliberate contrast might be
>> easier for me to accomplish than a "match".
>
> If you want it to look like it does not match... and then you can try to
> fool people by telling them you did that intentionally... It's all a matter
> of taste though. I've seen some top notch woodworkers turn out pieces in
> contrasting woods. I always thought that look was horrible, but... it's a
> matter of taste.
>
>
>>
>> I'm asking for basic pointers, pros and cons, pitfalls a weekend
>> warrior like me is likely to stumble into, etc. My goal is to make
>> something functional and decent-looking in a reasonable amount of
>> time.
>
> Just look at what your defintion of "a reasonable amount of time" is. Don't
> sell it short. So what if it takes you a week of your spare time to get it
> done? Is it more important to get it done in an evening?
I'm afraid you overestimate my skill and efficiency. I'd be lucky to cut
and assemble the units in a few days. But the finishing has always been
the most time-consuming part.
It will certainly
> look like that's what you did if you go that route. Sometimes we get
> ourselves psyched into a position even before we start a project...
>
>
On 9/13/2012 8:23 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 9/12/2012 6:03 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> 1. You should be able to move an object that size through normal interior
>> doors. Moving might fail, though, if you have tight corners such as a
>> stairway.
>>
>
> Yup. That's what I've got.
...
The suggestion is to have it short enough it'll clear any obstruction in
the fully upright uncomfortable position...
--
On 9/13/2012 11:40 AM, WW wrote:
>
>
> "Greg Guarino" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As an
> idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no set
> design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no way to
> carry objects that size through the house, I would need to make two
> boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on site. That
> would probably necessitate installing the face frame on site as well.
>
>
> Greg.. This brings back memories. Building kitchen cabinets for our new
> house. Same dimensions as your cabinet. Ceiling height was 84 inches.
> Got it into the kitchen OK. Went to stand it up. No go. Forgot the top
> to bottom diagonal was more than 84 inches. Cut height down and made a
> toe kick section to slide under. Lesson learned. this was in 1970. I
> still have a lot to learn and this site is great learning from the
> experts. WW
I'm probably better at geometry than I am at woodworking. My ceiling is
8'. I figure to make the wardrobes well short of that.
On 9/12/2012 1:50 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As an
> idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no set
> design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no way to
> carry objects that size through the house, I would need to make two
> boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on site. That
> would probably necessitate installing the face frame on site as well.
1. Buy a Kreg jig
2. Buy pre-finished 3/4 plywood
3. Build the boxes
4. Build a sub base to set cabinet on.
4. Build a face frame
5. Finish with gel stain and varnish.
The face frame is optional depending on your taste.
No face frame means flush mounted doors.
You need four doors for a cabinet that tall in my opinion.
You might also consider a wardrobe on top and drawers on the
bottom.
Like this:
http://www.sauder.com/furniture/product.asp?p=1359
On 9/13/2012 7:47 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> One can mitigate the chipping by joining with tongues into dados; IOW, hide
> it. I use 1/2" wide tongues with 1/8" shoulders into 3/8" deep dados or
> rabbets.
My Dad used to make shelf units with what I'll call "full" dadoes,
meaning that if the shelf was 3/4" thick, the dado would be 3/4" also.
Could you explain, for the uninitiated, the advantage of making a
thinner "tongue"? Does it leave the uprights stronger? Or is it cosmetic
in some way?
On 9/13/2012 2:47 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
> On 9/12/2012 1:50 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As an
>> idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no set
>> design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no way to
>> carry objects that size through the house, I would need to make two
>> boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on site. That
>> would probably necessitate installing the face frame on site as well.
>
> 1. Buy a Kreg jig
> 2. Buy pre-finished 3/4 plywood
> 3. Build the boxes
> 4. Build a sub base to set cabinet on.
> 4. Build a face frame
Well, that's remarkably like what I was planning, if the word "planning"
can be applied to the random musing that I've done so far.
> 5. Finish with gel stain and varnish.
Haven't tried gel stain yet. But I have lots of scrap pieces, many of
which already have test finishes on them. Time to make some more I guess.
>
> The face frame is optional depending on your taste.
>
> No face frame means flush mounted doors.
>
> You need four doors for a cabinet that tall in my opinion.
I had some similar cabinets made some years ago. They have two
full-height vertical doors. As I mentioned before, they are "faux" panel
style, 3/4" ply with 2" x 1/4" strips glued on to mimic three vertical
panels. I haven't had any trouble with those doors, perhaps because they
are essentially a solid piece of relatively thick plywood. Are you
suggesting that a tall true panel door might warp?
> You might also consider a wardrobe on top and drawers on the
> bottom.
>
> Like this:
>
> http://www.sauder.com/furniture/product.asp?p=1359
That's pretty handsome looking. I might consider something like that, if
I can get over my fear of drawers. :)
On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
> Snip
>
> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple plywood, and
> some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". It was a pain to get them down to
> be even on both sides with the plywood.
I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my modest
knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set the fence on
the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I couldn't accidentally
cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set the depth stop so that the
plane would cut the edge piece exactly flush with the surface of the
ply. Someone with more developed skills might be able to do this by
"feel", but it worked nicely for me.
The iron-on maple banding veneer
> was much easier. Finished with blondest shellac as a seal coat, plus a
> couple more coats. Then shellac- alkyd(?)poly mix, and finally poly-
> pastewax mix with a touch of shellac. The latter a couple of coats. Then
> rubbing, and the finish is looking like it will last.
>
I have to say, that looks like an argument for prefinished ply, at least
for a busy guy with limited skills. I count six or seven steps,
something I might try on a smaller project, but not on this one.
Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 7:47 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>> One can mitigate the chipping by joining with tongues into dados;
>> IOW, hide it. I use 1/2" wide tongues with 1/8" shoulders into 3/8"
>> deep dados or rabbets.
>
> My Dad used to make shelf units with what I'll call "full" dadoes,
> meaning that if the shelf was 3/4" thick, the dado would be 3/4" also.
> Could you explain, for the uninitiated, the advantage of making a
> thinner "tongue"? Does it leave the uprights stronger? Or is it
> cosmetic in some way?
1. Double shoulders let you know absolutely when the tongue is completely
within the dado and helps assure that the part is perpendicular to its mate.
A tongue with a single shoulder can work in a similar way but doesn't assure
the perpendicular part.
2. Double shoulders and a thinner tongue can give you a bit of a fudge
factor if the tongue is slightly undersize. If the dado is the same width,
any mismatch is glaringly obvious. If a thin tongue is a bit undersize the
shoulders hide that unfortunate fact.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 11:40 AM, WW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Greg Guarino" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I've got a notion to build a couple of wardrobes for our bedroom. As
>> an idea, it has scarcely reached the "half-assed" stage. There's no
>> set design yet. They would be roughly 32W x 24D x 84H. As there's no
>> way to carry objects that size through the house, I would need to
>> make two boxes for each unit, to be stacked on top of each other on
>> site. That would probably necessitate installing the face frame on
>> site as well. Greg.. This brings back memories. Building kitchen cabinets
>> for our
>> new house. Same dimensions as your cabinet. Ceiling height was 84
>> inches. Got it into the kitchen OK. Went to stand it up. No go.
>> Forgot the top to bottom diagonal was more than 84 inches. Cut
>> height down and made a toe kick section to slide under. Lesson
>> learned. this was in 1970. I still have a lot to learn and this site
>> is great learning from the experts. WW
>
> I'm probably better at geometry than I am at woodworking. My ceiling
> is 8'. I figure to make the wardrobes well short of that.
Don't neglect attaching them to the wall or doing something else to prevent
their tipping.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Han wrote:
> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>> Snip
>>>
>>> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple
>>> plywood, and some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". It was a pain
>>> to get them down to be even on both sides with the plywood.
>>
>> I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my
>> modest knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set the
>> fence on the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I couldn't
>> accidentally cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set the depth
>> stop so that the plane would cut the edge piece exactly flush with
>> the surface of the ply. Someone with more developed skills might be
>> able to do this by "feel", but it worked nicely for me.
>
> Great idea for a needed tool I don't yet have! Thanks!! Which brand
> and model do you have?
Got a router? You can do the same thing with it.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 9/14/2012 8:23 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 7:47 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>>> One can mitigate the chipping by joining with tongues into dados;
>>> IOW, hide it. I use 1/2" wide tongues with 1/8" shoulders into 3/8"
>>> deep dados or rabbets.
>>
>> My Dad used to make shelf units with what I'll call "full" dadoes,
>> meaning that if the shelf was 3/4" thick, the dado would be 3/4" also.
>> Could you explain, for the uninitiated, the advantage of making a
>> thinner "tongue"? Does it leave the uprights stronger? Or is it
>> cosmetic in some way?
>
> 1. Double shoulders let you know absolutely when the tongue is completely
> within the dado and helps assure that the part is perpendicular to its mate.
> A tongue with a single shoulder can work in a similar way but doesn't assure
> the perpendicular part.
>
> 2. Double shoulders and a thinner tongue can give you a bit of a fudge
> factor if the tongue is slightly undersize. If the dado is the same width,
> any mismatch is glaringly obvious. If a thin tongue is a bit undersize the
> shoulders hide that unfortunate fact.
>
>
Excellent explanation. Thanks.
On 9/14/2012 8:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote in news:k2qsit$o9n$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>> Snip
>>>>
>>>> I made some cabinets for an entertainment center using maple
>>>> plywood, and some 1/4x1" maple strips as "banding". It was a pain
>>>> to get them down to be even on both sides with the plywood.
>>>
>>> I think I can be of some assistance here, which is rare given my
>>> modest knowledge. I used a rabbet plane for a similar job. I set the
>>> fence on the plane to the thickness of the edge piece, so I couldn't
>>> accidentally cut into the face of the plywood. Then I set the depth
>>> stop so that the plane would cut the edge piece exactly flush with
>>> the surface of the ply. Someone with more developed skills might be
>>> able to do this by "feel", but it worked nicely for me.
>>
>> Great idea for a needed tool I don't yet have! Thanks!! Which brand
>> and model do you have?
>
> Got a router? You can do the same thing with it.
>
I considered using a router for that task. In my case, I was trimming a
1x2 oak edge that I had glued around the perimeter of a desktop (with
the 1.5" dimension vertical). I thus had a 3/4" thick surface to take
down a very small amount, and only in certain areas. I think I may even
have asked for advice here.
My fear was that I'd have trouble keeping the router square with only a
1.5" surface for the plate to ride on. Someone with more skill and
confidence might not have that problem. That notwithstanding, the plane
did a nice job and I wouldn't hesitate to do it that way again.
Swingman wrote:
> On 9/14/2012 8:32 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> My fear was that I'd have trouble keeping the router square with
>> only a 1.5" surface for the plate to ride on. Someone with more skill and
>> confidence might not have that problem. That notwithstanding, the
>> plane did a nice job and I wouldn't hesitate to do it that way again.
>
> That's where a laminate trimmer comes in handy, like the Bosch Colt.
>
> My problem with using a plane on plywood banding is the sheer thinness
> of veneer in today's plywood. Even with my sharp, low angle, Veritas
> block plane, I've knicked about as much veneer as I've gouged with a
> router down through the years ... sometimes the grain just works
> against you.
I often use an itsy-bitsy Stanley...don't recall the number but it is about
1/2 the size of a block plane, fits easily in one hand and lets me use my
palm and finger tips to guide/control it.
With either it or a block plane I point it about 60 degrees to what I want
to cut and then sort of slide the blade along the high edge. Much easier to
avoid nicking the veneer.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 9/14/2012 11:19 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/14/2012 8:32 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> My fear was that I'd have trouble keeping the router square with only a
>> 1.5" surface for the plate to ride on. Someone with more skill and
>> confidence might not have that problem. That notwithstanding, the plane
>> did a nice job and I wouldn't hesitate to do it that way again.
>
> That's where a laminate trimmer comes in handy, like the Bosch Colt.
I have one, but I still wasn't confident that I wouldn't let the thing
tilt at some point, gouging out the edging.
>
> My problem with using a plane on plywood banding is the sheer thinness
> of veneer in today's plywood. Even with my sharp, low angle, Veritas
> block plane, I've knicked about as much veneer as I've gouged with a
> router down through the years ... sometimes the grain just works against
> you.
In my case, the edging was solid...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/6233523401/in/set-72157627751790027/lightbox/
... and the rabbet plane's "fence" made it impossible to cut anything
but the edge piece, handy for a guy like me. I had actually made a small
mock-up with the same materials (but only nailed together) as a test
before I did the trimming on the desktop.
> That said, I trimmed all the banding on these parts yesterday with a top
> bearing, flush trim, bit in the router table, with a split fence and
> featherboard:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopCustomMedicineCabinets#5787295307276757538
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods#5788049653985780754
My work piece was 72" x 32", so the router table was out.
> Much less chance of a screw-up when you're on a deadline, out of
> material, and with no spare parts that would take hours to re-cut if you
> slipped. ... and that is ALWAYS when it happens.
No deadline but my own, but I was also well motivated not to screw up
what had cost a good bit of my time.