On Jan 18, 3:11=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/18/2013 1:49 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
> >> I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you ma=
ke
> >> a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
> >> you will be using.
>
> > Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
> > drawer slides at all. =A0A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
>
> Better for what?
>
> My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
> not furniture drawers.
>
> IME, "traditionally fitted" drawers are not going to be well received
> by the modern kitchen user these days.
>
> Folks want soft/self closing drawers, and doors, in their kitchens now,
> often with other sliding components, none of which they are going to get
> with "traditionally fitted" drawers, at least not without the time and
> expense that would make it prohibitive to begin with ... they will want
> to put their money somewhere else where they get more bang for their buck=
.
>
> Perhaps for some areas in the kitchen, but certainly not for the
> majority of the drawers in a moern kitchen, which, when loaded with the
> myriad of utensils and heavy cooking items these days, the friction
> sliding of a "traditionally fitted drawer", even with nylon runners,
> will have a very short life span.
>
> --
> eWoodShop:www.eWoodShop.com
> Wood Shop:www.e-WoodShop.nethttps://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552=
/postshttp://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
> KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
I already have "traditionally fitted drawers" in my stick built
kitchen cabinets and trust me, I'm going to use slides when I build
the new ones. Even the nylon runners on the face frame and center bar
don't help.
Mike M <[email protected]> wrote:
> Being a contractor you'll knock heads here on a few things. Being a
> good contractor you give your clients choices. Some are doing a quick
> turn, some are building a dream house, and some are on a strict
> budget. Before I got hurt I was an electrical contractor and found
> the best way to bid was to present the options as it sounds like you
> do. That way at least if they went for the lowest price you might get
> a chance to educate them. If they were't interested in discussion
> they might not be a good customer. Every remodel brings problems.
> Sounds like you do an excellent job of showing the customer their
> choices.
And you, my friend, have obviously BTDT.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
"Gramp's shop" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local
> Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
Even smaller drawers with 3/4" sides can be gorgeous:
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AReHaM34Qo0/UIHB0cTcXQI/AAAAAAAAPL0/e8j8HoaQ5zc/s2048/78869D24-1E77-4816-BECD-D3038CDD7265.JPG
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thicker bottoms make for a stronger drawer, and one that sounds so much
> more "expensive" when the lady of the house first opens one ... I've seen
> them stand there and open and close every drawer in a new kitchen for
> thirty minutes, with a smile on their face. :)
And that brings up a point with regard to material thickness and the use of
modern metal drawer slides, which most likely points to a key, subliminal
reason why professional designers go for the thicker materials in modern
kitchens.
Besides "fit and finish", and "look and feel", the sense/aspect that ties
both these together, as well as the overall perception of a magnificent
job, is often unspoken and not consciously realized in the mind of the user
... the sound the components make in operation/use.
Thinner materials in drawers, in combination with modern metal drawer
slides, often leave a vague, unsatisfying impression of cheapness in the
mind of the user by the sound made when operating ... and I would imagine
painfully so by those well schooled in traditional woodworking methods,
like John G.
Many of us have experienced that cheap, hollow sound of a thin plywood
bathroom vanity drawer, with 1/4" plywood bottoms, and .99 cent side
mounted slides in homes with "builder grade" cabinets ... open a drawer in
an upstairs bath at the other end of the house and you can hear it on the
patio out back :)
A well made, "traditionally fitted" drawer, regardless of material
thickness, and sliding on wood, won't normally leave you with that
impression.
So, for those of us who must use modern methods and materials to make a
living, a drawer made with thicker material, say 3/4 sides and 1/2" bottom,
being heavier, and even when using less than top quality metal slides, will
give a decided impression of quality simply through the sound made during
operation because of its increased mass, something that is not often
experienced with the lighter drawers made from thinner materials
Scoff at the above thought at your peril ... It is the sum of the little
things like that that add up to you getting the big bucks, as well as the
satisfaction, for your hard work. :)
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On Jan 18, 4:16=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/18/2013 12:46 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > Thank for your earlier post about using whatever stock "fits",
> > budgetwise, etc.
>
> Not sure that was me, but can't disagree w/ the point...
>
> > What are your thoughts on bottom vs. side-mount slides, in general?
>
> Bottom has the aesthetics; see my reply to Karl regarding the
> dimensions. =A0They take a fair amount of depth which may (or may not) be
> less of an issue than width as far as usability/loss of room.
>
> > At the risk of hijacking this thread, do you have a source that you
> > like for slides? I'll only need 5 sets for my kitchen.
>
> There's hardly anywhere better for cabinet hardware than Woodworker's
> Hardware
>
> <www.wwhardware.com>
>
> --
You are right...it was Swingman's post I was referring to.
Thanks for the link.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
>> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local
>> Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
>
> Swingman and I actually used 3/4" maple for a high end kitchen/bathrooms
> remodel year before last. There must have been close to 50 drawers
> total. All dovetailed or rabbeted with added domino reinforcements. They looked rich.
>
> That said, for kitchen or bathroom cabinets for a normal budget job I
> prefer 1/2" Baltic Birch.
>
> If I were dovetailing absolutely 3/4" solid stock.
>
> Here they are
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/5471710794/in/set-72157622991960362/
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/5471112571/in/set-72157622991960362
And some more:
http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TQVhMYkCUno/TtEWe6a4SiI/AAAAAAAAIus/9TmY1Xv9wEo/s2048/2011-01-22_15-09-17_987.jpg
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4jKdF9-_GKk/TtEWjkn_i6I/AAAAAAAAIvM/3RQ5eS9nwiw/s2048/2011-02-25_12-13-53.jpg
http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-DSLXSeHVGCA/TtEWeFaC1YI/AAAAAAAAIuo/sjcZvcKtYhE/s2048/2011-01-21_17-10-41_964.jpg
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0UnS5uB5uWI/TtEWi_9K9II/AAAAAAAAIvI/nKsHeb1VzUQ/s2048/2011-02-23_17-55-41_578.jpg
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On 1/18/2013 10:51 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> I may be building all new drawers for my kitchen soon, so I am very
> interested in this issue. My current drawers, in 1950's stick built
> cabinets, are 1/2" stock. I do not plan on replacing the cabinets,
> just building drawers and doors.
Actually, it pretty simple. Go with what does the job, both cost
effectively for your budget, and attractively for you and your design.
I use whatever is spec'ed by the client.
Many high end kitchens these days have a professional designer involved
in the initial design and almost to a man/woman, they go with 3/4" thick
drawer sides/components. There is something to be said for that in both
looks and function once you see a well designed kitchen with well
executed drawers of that thickness ... it does convey a sense of above
average _custom work_ to a kitchen in the upper price range.
That said, I used 1/2" poplar for my own kitchen drawers and they do the
job just fine and fit nicely in my budget at the time. Pretty cheesy by
today's designer standards. :)
I've also built a ton of drawers for others using 1/2" pre-finished stock.
My choice is to "split the difference", and use 5/8" stock, which is
what I generally put in the kitchens in the homes I build.
5/8" drawer thickness, IMO, gives you the best of both worlds, so is
worth considering for your new kitchen drawers.
YMMV ...
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:53:16 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got there.
>
>And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics, the
>price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
Shouldn't let his reply irk you. I'm jealous of everything you build
too. However, you can redeem yourself by giving away all your
woodworking tools to me and taking a vow of poverty.
"Gramp's shop" wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
> local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I like 9 ply (1/2") birch.
With a coat of shellac, the ply layers pop and they sure look purdy.
Lew
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:58:52 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:13:33 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>"Swingman" wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>>And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
>>>
>>>I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with solid
>>>wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't use
>>>drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would drawers in
>>>a
>>>fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank Klauz presents on
>>>his
>>>dovetail DVD.
>>
>>Bravo! I had the pleasure and honor of attending some of Frank's
>>seminars and to work with (for) him at a WW show years back. Great
>>guy. Best dovies in the world, too.
>
>I met Frank a while back too. A show somewhere in PA as I recall. He was
>messing around with a European combination machine.
>
>A couple years ago I gave lectures at the Northeastern Woodworkers
>Associations show in Saratoga Springs, NY where I cut dovetails much like
>Frank does... but I used all the "wrong" tools. I used a 12 pt. 22" cross
>cut panel saw, a marking gauge, pencil, 1/2" Marples carpenter's chisel, and
>a hammer. No dovetail saw, no bevel gauge, no ruler, no mallet...
<g> I make them wrong, too. I don't like the old French LVT dovie
saw, so I use my ryoba, Marples blue chips, and my Fox urethane
mallet. Love them all dearly, but I don't do many dovies.
>The whole focus was on process and how to visually tell if you were cutting
>straight, which side of the line was waste, etc. Quite frankly I thought I
>lost the attendees as I was going through it in real time... the room got
>really quiet. I was relieved when I put the joint together as it went
>together with no messing around and no gaps... the group broke out in
>applause as they could see on the monitor, when the camera zoomed in tight
>on the joint, that it was a nice clean fit. I joked around a bit about how
>you dont need mirrors, a million lines, landing lights off a 747, variable
>pitch dovetail saws, layout gizmos or things to hold the saw... keep a few
>basic things in mind and it works.
<g> Goodonya, John.
>Speaking of the NWA Showcase, it's coming up on March 23-24. This year it
>was requested that I talk about woodworking with youth. This as my sons have
>been regular winners at the show since they were about 6 and 8 years of age.
>Doug Stowe and I are pretty much on the same page in regards to this and I
>ran a few things by him for his opinion. He has met my sons and over the
>years posted photos of them at work on his blog "Wisdom of the Hands." After
>that exchange I agreed to do the program.
Cool. Congrats, and have fun!
--
The problem with borrowing money from China is
that thirty minutes later, you feel broke again.
--Steve Bridges as Obama
dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one is
> using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical and
> 3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
> unless there's just unlimited room available.
Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all. ;)
With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:13:33 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Swingman" wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>>And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
>
>I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with solid
>wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't use
>drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would drawers in a
>fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank Klauz presents on his
>dovetail DVD.
Bravo! I had the pleasure and honor of attending some of Frank's
seminars and to work with (for) him at a WW show years back. Great
guy. Best dovies in the world, too.
>Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide in and
>out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but they work with
>the kitchen and they function well.
Mine are cheaper plywood drawers, but they're on wax, too. With he
exception of the tool drawer, they all slide easily when waxed a
couple/three times a year. I make sure to -declutter- them on those
days, so it's really A Good Thing(tm).
>Also, to use slides I would have had to
>build structure in the cabinet to which slides could be mounted--that would
>have been an annoying venture.
That would have been a PITA.
--
The problem with borrowing money from China is
that thirty minutes later, you feel broke again.
--Steve Bridges as Obama
>"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:13:33 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Swingman" wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
>>
>>I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with solid
>>wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't use
>>drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would drawers in
>>a
>>fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank Klauz presents on
>>his
>>dovetail DVD.
>
>Bravo! I had the pleasure and honor of attending some of Frank's
>seminars and to work with (for) him at a WW show years back. Great
>guy. Best dovies in the world, too.
I met Frank a while back too. A show somewhere in PA as I recall. He was
messing around with a European combination machine.
A couple years ago I gave lectures at the Northeastern Woodworkers
Associations show in Saratoga Springs, NY where I cut dovetails much like
Frank does... but I used all the "wrong" tools. I used a 12 pt. 22" cross
cut panel saw, a marking gauge, pencil, 1/2" Marples carpenter's chisel, and
a hammer. No dovetail saw, no bevel gauge, no ruler, no mallet...
The whole focus was on process and how to visually tell if you were cutting
straight, which side of the line was waste, etc. Quite frankly I thought I
lost the attendees as I was going through it in real time... the room got
really quiet. I was relieved when I put the joint together as it went
together with no messing around and no gaps... the group broke out in
applause as they could see on the monitor, when the camera zoomed in tight
on the joint, that it was a nice clean fit. I joked around a bit about how
you donât need mirrors, a million lines, landing lights off a 747, variable
pitch dovetail saws, layout gizmos or things to hold the saw... keep a few
basic things in mind and it works.
Speaking of the NWA Showcase, it's coming up on March 23-24. This year it
was requested that I talk about woodworking with youth. This as my sons have
been regular winners at the show since they were about 6 and 8 years of age.
Doug Stowe and I are pretty much on the same page in regards to this and I
ran a few things by him for his opinion. He has met my sons and over the
years posted photos of them at work on his blog "Wisdom of the Hands." After
that exchange I agreed to do the program.
John
On 1/18/2013 1:49 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>> I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
>> a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
>> you will be using.
>
> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
Better for what?
My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
not furniture drawers.
IME, "traditionally fitted" drawers are not going to be well received
by the modern kitchen user these days.
Folks want soft/self closing drawers, and doors, in their kitchens now,
often with other sliding components, none of which they are going to get
with "traditionally fitted" drawers, at least not without the time and
expense that would make it prohibitive to begin with ... they will want
to put their money somewhere else where they get more bang for their buck.
Perhaps for some areas in the kitchen, but certainly not for the
majority of the drawers in a moern kitchen, which, when loaded with the
myriad of utensils and heavy cooking items these days, the friction
sliding of a "traditionally fitted drawer", even with nylon runners,
will have a very short life span.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
> The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch... :)
That's another thing that will surprise many folks about the modern
kitchen user, it did me at one point.
I've designed and built quite a few custom kitchens in the past 12 years
and, in doing so, one thing is notable ... when you sit down with
someone to discuss all the details of a custom kitchen _design_ , you do
so with the goal of finding out what is important to them, as
individuals ... and things are seldom what you would expect.
Drawer _height_ is a perfect example.
I can't recall one client in ten years who has asked for taller drawers.
Almost without exception, modern kitchen users seem to prefer a
shallower drawer than the actualy cabinet opening will accommodate.
Deeper drawers hold more stuff, but in layers, and the modern kitchen
user will quickly tell you they would rather have more drawers, than
taller drawers, and without having to dig through layers of "stuff".
In short, drawer side height is not as big a concern when designing a
kitchen as it once was, and you rarely have to design to maximize for
the cabinet opening as you once did.
And that's a relief, since, as a rule, undermount slides require 1/2"
clearance at the bottom to operate, you can actually use thicker drawer
bottoms without fear of taking up too much drawer interior real estate.
Thicker bottoms make for a stronger drawer, and one that sounds so much
more "expensive" when the lady of the house first opens one ... I've
seen them stand there and open and close every drawer in a new kitchen
for thirty minutes, with a smile on their face. :)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
>> you're using no drawer sides at all. ;)
>
> Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
> difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
> Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
> over more than one...
>> With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
>> modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
>> the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.
>
> The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch... :)
:) Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
sounds.
With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
material_.
IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:
Drawer Width
DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)
Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)
Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).
In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
the older style slides.
And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
"dadiOH" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> >"Swingman" wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>
>> >On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>>> And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
>
>> I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with
> >solid wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I
> >didn't use drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I
>> would drawers in a fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach
> >Frank Klauz presents on his dovetail DVD.
>
> >Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide
> >in and out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but
> >they work with the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use
> >slides I would have had to build structure in the cabinet to which
>> slides could be mounted--that would have been an annoying venture.
>I applaud your work and am not trying to rain on your parade; however, your
>drawers *ALSO* need an internal structure upon which they slide.
That they had that structure from the original construction of the cabinets.
What they didn't have was anyplace to install slides... For either side
mount or under mount I'd have had to build new internal structure in the
carcasses--a pain in itself--and I'd have lost storage capacity. Making new
drawers that fit properly was far easier and actually gained me a little
capacity as the originals were a little too small for the opening.
John
Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:53:16 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got there.
>>
>>And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics, the
>>price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
>
> Shouldn't let his reply irk you. I'm jealous of everything you build
> too. However, you can redeem yourself by giving away all your
> woodworking tools to me and taking a vow of poverty.
Poverty? I disagree Karl needs poverty. He really seems to earn his keep.
I think his detailed help to people here and elsewhere is reason enough to
just be grateful for his wisdom.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:53:16 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got
>>>there.
>>>
>>>And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics,
>>>the price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
>>
>> Shouldn't let his reply irk you. I'm jealous of everything you build
>> too. However, you can redeem yourself by giving away all your
>> woodworking tools to me and taking a vow of poverty.
>
> Poverty? I disagree Karl needs poverty. He really seems to earn his
> keep. I think his detailed help to people here and elsewhere is
> reason enough to just be grateful for his wisdom.
>
+1
>"Swingman" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On 1/18/2013 5:13 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with
>> solid wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't
>> use drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would
>> drawers in a fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank
>> Klauz presents on his dovetail DVD.
>>
>> Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide in
>> and out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but they
>> work with the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use slides I
>> would have had to build structure in the cabinet to which slides could
>> be mounted--that would have been an annoying venture.
>
>I bet they are beautiful and work wonderfully as you described.
>
>Rest assured I certainly appreciate what you accomplished and I can, and
>will do exactly that for a client, if that is really what they want ... for
>that is name of the game, and the keys to the kingdom.
>
>Reality however, is that most will head to Ikea quicker than you can drop
>you're hat when they find out they won't get their self closing drawers,
>soft close pullout pantries, toekick drawers, custom pot pullouts, lazy
>Susan corner cabinet inserts, and drawer dishwasher cabinets ...
>
>... that is, if they don't choke on today's labor costs of your above
>beforehand. :)
>
>All that notwithstanding, my hat's off to you. Got some photos? ... I would
>genuinely love to see it. :)
No photos at this point... the kitchen is still in process in that I've been
stripping the frames and cabinet fronts so I can repaint the whole thing.
Some minor repairs have been made to the frames and I also made a couple new
cabinet doors. Quite frankly, it is in a state that it looks like Hell! LOL
As my "whole house" renovation progresses the kitchen will be ripped out and
reoriented. It will take me at least another 3-4-5 years to get to that
point and I couldn't bear to live with the poorly functioning and damaged
things that were there.
I understand the labor cost thing. I'm proficient at cutting the dovetails
by hand and in fact do not own any kind of router jig to do so. If I were
making a living at this and had 10, 20 or more drawers to do it would likely
be a different story. In my case the materials used were all left overs
from other projects so the drawers cost me next to nothing in terms of
money.
I must say that the new drawers fit much better than the originals. The
originals were undersized and would rack and droop so they did not slide
smoothly. For a few hours work with left over materials it was one of those
"good deal" projects.
John
On Jan 17, 8:06=A0pm, "Gramp's shop" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? =A0The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the loca=
l Menards. =A0Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Larry
This isn't an answer to your specific question, and I have read all
the other posts about 3/4" being fine, but I'll tell you my story:
I built 2 slide out boxes for all of our plastic containers, one for
the covers, one for the containers themselves. They each take up 1/2
of one base cabinet, i.e. one above the shelf, one below it.
I used 3/4" ply and bullnosed the top edges. They always look bulky to
me when I extend them. Maybe it's because they aren't holding any
"visual weight" but they just look overbuilt. 2 years later and I
still wonder if they would look better had I gone with 1/2" stock.
I may be building all new drawers for my kitchen soon, so I am very
interested in this issue. My current drawers, in 1950's stick built
cabinets, are 1/2" stock. I do not plan on replacing the cabinets,
just building drawers and doors.
On 1/18/2013 3:18 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> You are right...it was Swingman's post I was referring to.
>
> Thanks for the link.
Check out KV's MuV (Knape & Vogt) premium undermount drawer slides.
Very nice slide, smooth as silk action, and I've found they perform
equally with any of Blum's comparable slides at a better price, and they
are easier to install.
I've used the MuV's in three full blown kitchens and one remodel now,
and I like them better then my old favorites that I used for years,
Hettich slides ... the MuV's are much less fussy to install, and a good
bit more forgiving with regard to fit.
The Hettich's are excellent slides, but are bears for requiring an
absolute perfect fit.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Jan 18, 12:47=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? =
The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
>
> local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
> ...
>
> I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one
> is using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical
> and 3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
> unless there's just unlimited room available.
>
> I generally use either oak or soft maple to be stiff/strong enough and
> go no more than 1/2"--often even 3/8" for smaller drawers. =A0Even a deep
> file drawer in oak is plenty stout enough w/ 1/2".
>
> I also will round over the tops--I don't like the square edges.
>
> Hadn't thought of the wide rabbet for the tray--that does handle the
> visual problem nicely but not the total width loss. =A0If I'm going to do
> that I'll make a dado and inset a ledger strip and keep the same total
> thickness.
>
> --
Thank for your earlier post about using whatever stock "fits",
budgetwise, etc.
What are your thoughts on bottom vs. side-mount slides, in general?
At the risk of hijacking this thread, do you have a source that you
like for slides? I'll only need 5 sets for my kitchen.
On 1/21/2013 9:39 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 1/20/2013 10:53 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/20/2013 8:53 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:11:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
>>>>> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
>>>>
>>>> Better for what?
>>>>
>>>> My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
>>>> not furniture drawers.
>>>
>>> Last I looked, this was the "recreational woodworking" group, not the
>>> "commercial kitchen cabinet builders" group :-).
>>
>> So - and upon your last look - when a "recreational woodworker" asks a
>> question/expresses an interest in a subject, only a "recreational"
>> woodworker can answer in this "recreational woodworking" group?
>>
>> Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got there.
>>
>> And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics, the
>> price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
>
>
> Having been trying to learn something, I've observed that Swingman's
> models for cabinetmaking feature more fine-woodworking integrity than
> comparable projects in magazines, where projects may be "dumbed-down"
> for the sake of creating entertaining media, perhaps. I hope you keep
> preachin' Swingman (and others)!
Thanks for the kind words, Bill. Granted, some jobs require a measure of
uncompromising assholery to get things done, mainly because you're
dealing with other peoples money and dreams and, for whatever reasons,
they've already realized they can't get the job done themselves ... and
most would agree some of us are well suited to that task, and that that
attitude tends to spill over to other areas.
That said, and when someone asks a question, and I feel like I can give
a reply based on relevant experience, I will ... and at the same I will
also endeavor to _show_, using whatever technology at hand, why I feel
my reply may address the question/concern.
I'm well aware that that rubs some folks here the wrong way, probably
because their own insecurity makes them feel it's akin to "tootin' your
own horn". Fuck'em.
I will continue to "preach", as you say ... and couldn't give a rat's
ass less about them, or what they feel or think ... there's always the
killfile to allow them to feel better about themselves if that's what it
takes.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/18/2013 6:11 PM, dpb wrote:
>> Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)
> For them back to the depth, I just looking at the datasheet--there's
> 1/2" min under bottom to drawer side bottom and 9/16 more to the rail
> clearance. So there's 17/16" plus bottom thickness out of the opening.
In practice it actually comes out to 13/16" out of the cabinet opening
for the max drawer height that can be used for the slides I mentioned
... use that figure for them and you can take it to the bank that your
drawer height will fit nicely with sufficient clearance ... see above,
taken from the data sheet parameters for those slides, and used to
actually build five or six dozen drawers for the slides that were
mentioned, not just talk about them. :)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 21 Jan 2013 12:55:48 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:53:16 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got there.
>>>
>>>And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics, the
>>>price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
>>
>> Shouldn't let his reply irk you. I'm jealous of everything you build
>> too. However, you can redeem yourself by giving away all your
>> woodworking tools to me and taking a vow of poverty.
>
>Poverty? I disagree Karl needs poverty. He really seems to earn his keep.
>I think his detailed help to people here and elsewhere is reason enough to
>just be grateful for his wisdom.
Agreed plus the photos are worth the price of admission.
Mike M
On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Larry
>
Swingman and I actually used 3/4" maple for a high end kitchen/bathrooms
remodel year before last. There must have been close to 50 drawers
total. All dovetailed or rabbeted with added domino reinforcements.
They looked rich.
That said, for kitchen or bathroom cabinets for a normal budget job I
prefer 1/2" Baltic Birch.
If I were dovetailing absolutely 3/4" solid stock.
Here they are
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/5471710794/in/set-72157622991960362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/5471112571/in/set-72157622991960362
On 1/18/2013 5:13 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
> I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with
> solid wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't
> use drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would
> drawers in a fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank
> Klauz presents on his dovetail DVD.
>
> Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide in
> and out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but they
> work with the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use slides I
> would have had to build structure in the cabinet to which slides could
> be mounted--that would have been an annoying venture.
I bet they are beautiful and work wonderfully as you described.
Rest assured I certainly appreciate what you accomplished and I can, and
will do exactly that for a client, if that is really what they want ...
for that is name of the game, and the keys to the kingdom.
Reality however, is that most will head to Ikea quicker than you can
drop you're hat when they find out they won't get their self closing
drawers, soft close pullout pantries, toekick drawers, custom pot
pullouts, lazy Susan corner cabinet inserts, and drawer dishwasher
cabinets ...
... that is, if they don't choke on today's labor costs of your above
beforehand. :)
All that notwithstanding, my hat's off to you. Got some photos? ... I
would genuinely love to see it. :)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/17/13 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Larry
>
1/2" (7/16") is plenty.
3/4" would be way over kill.
You'd lose space and add weight.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Gramp's shop wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
> local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
Either one but one may be preferable depending...
The 7/16 is fine as long as it is ample for whatever joint you intend to
use.
The 3/4 is fine regardless of the joint. Especially if you intend to get
max usefulness from the drawer. I almost always partition drawers by
cutting 1/4" evenly spaced "V"s into the sides. That lets me easily make
moveable partitions.
I also very frequently fit drawers - even very shallow drawers - with
sliding trays. I do that by using 3/4" sides and making a wide 1/4" rabbet
along the inside top of them. The rabbet is slightly wider than the tray
will be deep and the bottom supports the tray. The rabbet also removes the
top portion of the "V"s for the bottom part of the drawer. The trays can be
either lift out (same size as drawer inside) or sliding (one half or less
than the drawer inside); I generally do the latter.
"A place for everything and everything in its place" :-)
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
...
I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one
is using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical
and 3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
unless there's just unlimited room available.
I generally use either oak or soft maple to be stiff/strong enough and
go no more than 1/2"--often even 3/8" for smaller drawers. Even a deep
file drawer in oak is plenty stout enough w/ 1/2".
I also will round over the tops--I don't like the square edges.
Hadn't thought of the wide rabbet for the tray--that does handle the
visual problem nicely but not the total width loss. If I'm going to do
that I'll make a dado and inset a ledger strip and keep the same total
thickness.
--
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:06:55 -0800, Gramp's shop wrote:
> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local
> Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
I think it's a matter of preference. That said, my experience has been
that most folks think the 1/2" looks more to scale unless you're talking
very large drawers.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
> a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
> you will be using.
Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 1/18/13 1:49 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>> I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
>> a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
>> you will be using.
>
> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
>
gross.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one is
>> using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical and
>> 3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
>> unless there's just unlimited room available.
>
> Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
> you're using no drawer sides at all. ;)
Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
over more than one...
> With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
> modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
> the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.
The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch... :)
I replaced a set of the old single undermount roller w/ the front side
rollers w/ a centermount slide type that is also able to fit in the 3/8"
bottom lip thickness as a trial here. It's pretty good excepting for
the 3/4 length pullout. I'm looking at the possibility of using an
overlong slide for the drawer to get extra extension but haven't gotten
around to actually doing it.
I've not done a new kitchen in over 20 yr where the sizes are so huge
any more--even in the old houses in Lynchburg often kitchens were very
small comparatively (many of them actually had the "real" kitchen in the
basement or an outbuilding for the staff rather than being in the house
as a full-fledged kitchen as we know it today so they had to be
scavenged room taken from other adjoining areas which generally meant
they were also small. The kitchen in the old farm house here which was
an add-on in the 20s to the house built in the early/mid-teens has only
about six feet of _total_ counter length and that includes that 4-ft of
it is around a 90 that has a lazy susan in it for storage. There si
space for only three drawers along the counter top row so even a half
inch is a loss.
--
On 1/18/2013 12:46 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> Thank for your earlier post about using whatever stock "fits",
> budgetwise, etc.
Not sure that was me, but can't disagree w/ the point...
> What are your thoughts on bottom vs. side-mount slides, in general?
Bottom has the aesthetics; see my reply to Karl regarding the
dimensions. They take a fair amount of depth which may (or may not) be
less of an issue than width as far as usability/loss of room.
> At the risk of hijacking this thread, do you have a source that you
> like for slides? I'll only need 5 sets for my kitchen.
There's hardly anywhere better for cabinet hardware than Woodworker's
Hardware
<www.wwhardware.com>
--
On 1/18/2013 5:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>
>> The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch... :)
>
> That's another thing that will surprise many folks about the modern
> kitchen user, it did me at one point.
>
...
> I can't recall one client in ten years who has asked for taller drawers.
>
> Almost without exception, modern kitchen users seem to prefer a
> shallower drawer than the actualy cabinet opening will accommodate.
>
...
The loss comes in trying to get in more shallower in the same space as
fewer taller. In the layout I described earlier, there's one reasonably
deep one at the bottom that works well for dishtowels, etc., and two of
appropriate size above for utensils, etc.
If I were to do this one over again from scratch (I did the roughin
cabinetry for folks in the early/mid-80s when they redid the old house)
I'd likely do as the other poster above mentioned--just fit cabinet
drawers instead. It would be a pita now to add the internal casework to
set 'em on, but it could be done....I might give a rethink at least a
little before I do any more of the swap out of the worn out roller ones
Dad used...
--
On 1/18/2013 4:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>>> Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
>>> you're using no drawer sides at all. ;)
>>
>> Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
>> difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
>> Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
>> over more than one...
>
>
>>> With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
>>> modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly
>>> with
>>> the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.
>>
>> The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch... :)
>
> :) Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
> the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
> sounds.
>
> With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
> deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
> material_.
>
> IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
> chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
> dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:
>
> Drawer Width
> DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
> 5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
> 9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
> 1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)
>
> Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)
>
> Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
> no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
> blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).
>
> In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
> interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
> the older style slides.
>
> And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
That's 'cuz they sit in the corner of the frame opening and the distance
thereto is therefore fixed. If I were to use one for these very small
spaces, I'd likely make the bottom match the distance then essentially
take the rabbet idea previously mentioned and extend it the full
interior drawer depth to keep the outer dimension tolerances but still
have the thinner drawer side visible. Building it that way would
probably entail a glue joint of the two thickness pieces, then cut to
final width. _I_ really do not like the visual thickness whatever the
current housewife thinks! :)
For them back to the depth, I just looking at the datasheet--there's
1/2" min under bottom to drawer side bottom and 9/16 more to the rail
clearance. So there's 17/16" plus bottom thickness out of the opening.
The drawers here have 3/8" to drawer side + 1/8" above rail clearance a
net gain of 14/16" for same bottom thickness.
Now, granted, there's no self-closing feature and the centermount KV
isn't nearly what the MuV is in capacity but it works better in the
constrained spaces here...
_IF_ (the proverbial big if) I were in the business of satisfying
somebody else and selling in today's market, that would be an entirely
different animal...fortunately, I've been able to get out of that
environment for 10+ yr now...it's only Mom Nature and drought, plague,
input costs and farm program uncertainties that control now! :)
--
John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>> And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
>
> I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with
> solid wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I
> didn't use drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I
> would drawers in a fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach
> Frank Klauz presents on his dovetail DVD.
>
> Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide
> in and out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but
> they work with the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use
> slides I would have had to build structure in the cabinet to which
> slides could be mounted--that would have been an annoying venture.
I applaud your work and am not trying to rain on your parade; however, your
drawers *ALSO* need an internal structure upon which they slide.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 1/19/2013 6:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thicker bottoms make for a stronger drawer, and one that sounds so much
>> more "expensive" when the lady of the house first opens one ... I've seen
>> them stand there and open and close every drawer in a new kitchen for
>> thirty minutes, with a smile on their face. :)
>
> And that brings up a point with regard to material thickness and the use of
> modern metal drawer slides, which most likely points to a key, subliminal
> reason why professional designers go for the thicker materials in modern
> kitchens.
>
> Besides "fit and finish", and "look and feel", the sense/aspect that ties
> both these together, as well as the overall perception of a magnificent
> job, is often unspoken and not consciously realized in the mind of the user
> ... the sound the components make in operation/use.
>
> Thinner materials in drawers, in combination with modern metal drawer
> slides, often leave a vague, unsatisfying impression of cheapness in the
> mind of the user by the sound made when operating ... and I would imagine
> painfully so by those well schooled in traditional woodworking methods,
> like John G.
>
> Many of us have experienced that cheap, hollow sound of a thin plywood
> bathroom vanity drawer, with 1/4" plywood bottoms, and .99 cent side
> mounted slides in homes with "builder grade" cabinets ... open a drawer in
> an upstairs bath at the other end of the house and you can hear it on the
> patio out back :)
>
> A well made, "traditionally fitted" drawer, regardless of material
> thickness, and sliding on wood, won't normally leave you with that
> impression.
>
> So, for those of us who must use modern methods and materials to make a
> living, a drawer made with thicker material, say 3/4 sides and 1/2" bottom,
> being heavier, and even when using less than top quality metal slides, will
> give a decided impression of quality simply through the sound made during
> operation because of its increased mass, something that is not often
> experienced with the lighter drawers made from thinner materials
>
> Scoff at the above thought at your peril ... It is the sum of the little
> things like that that add up to you getting the big bucks, as well as the
> satisfaction, for your hard work. :)
Don't (and didn't) "scoff" at the problem of inexpensive slides and
_excessively_ cheap construction...the quality of the slide is probably
95+% of the problem in a well-built drawer not feeling solid; in much of
the home box-store entry-level cabinets the stapled hardboard boxes
themselves are just flimsy as well.
But, one can certainly take a box w/ hardwood sides and thinner profile
and have it perform as nicely as needed--but it may well be that indeed
to do so in scale and have a reasonable return essentially mandates the
common form. Certainly today's glides are designed for it--one has to
go to some lengths to work them into anything else and that, of course,
is time which is the bane of production anything...
I'm certainly glad I'm in position to not have to be in production any
longer--I'm too crotchety in my old age to do anything any way but how
_I_ want it.. :)
--
On 1/19/2013 8:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/19/2013 7:48 AM, dpb wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly glad I'm in position to not have to be in production any
>> longer--I'm too crotchety in my old age to do anything any way but how
>> _I_ want it.. :)
>
> You're damned sure that!
>
> ... then, so am I. :)
>
:)
I've spent most of last couple days repairing a very old chest that's
stood in the basement for work gloves, etc., and a place to pile hats,
etc., for as long as I can remember and the piece goes back to the '20s
I'm sure.
It was initially a very nice factory-built piece of oak but the drawer
sides and bottoms were red gum. It's a short piece so only two
uppers/one lower; top about 5", bottom 7 or thereabouts deep. Three
drawer sides had split/broken at the kerf for their bottoms and somebody
(I presume Dad but it may have gone back to grandfather) had just tacked
them up and gone on. I opened it the other morning to rifle thru for
pair of heavier insulated gloves and the bottom of the top drawer fell
completely out so that was impetus to fix the whole thing. Glue had
pretty much failed in all joints so could knock the sides off the fronts
(machine-cut dovetails w/ the rounded-over tails) so just trimmed off
the bottom just below the last tail above the drawer kerfs on the bad
sides and glued on a new piece of same thickness. Then, recut dadoes
and the missing pin to match and made a new bottom for the lower drawer
that had warped and cracked -- one of signs of the age of the piece; the
drawers were 1/4" solid pieces of 14" in width--not ply.
Now that the drawers all fit and work again, Lynda thinks she wants it
refinished and move it upstairs... :)
--
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:11:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
>> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
>
> Better for what?
>
> My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
> not furniture drawers.
Last I looked, this was the "recreational woodworking" group, not the
"commercial kitchen cabinet builders" group :-).
(If that sounds a little snippy, it's because Comcast just clobbered all
our email accounts and I'm too miserable from the flu to fight with them
just now.)
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 1/20/2013 10:53 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/20/2013 8:53 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:11:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
>>>> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
>>>
>>> Better for what?
>>>
>>> My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
>>> not furniture drawers.
>>
>> Last I looked, this was the "recreational woodworking" group, not the
>> "commercial kitchen cabinet builders" group :-).
>
> So - and upon your last look - when a "recreational woodworker" asks a
> question/expresses an interest in a subject, only a "recreational"
> woodworker can answer in this "recreational woodworking" group?
>
> Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got there.
>
> And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics, the
> price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
Having been trying to learn something, I've observed that Swingman's
models for cabinetmaking feature more fine-woodworking integrity than
comparable projects in magazines, where projects may be "dumbed-down"
for the sake of creating entertaining media, perhaps. I hope you keep
preachin' Swingman (and others)!
Bill
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:53:16 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>> (If that sounds a little snippy, it's because Comcast just clobbered
>> all our email accounts and I'm too miserable from the flu to fight with
>> them just now.)
>
> So you heard that 'sound' too, but pulled the trigger on the post
> anyway?
You heard my excuse - what's yours?
There's nothing wrong with suggesting commercial solutions in this group
- we all learn that way. But turning up your nose at fitted drawers is
just reverse snobbery.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 1/22/2013 11:13 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:53:16 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>>> (If that sounds a little snippy, it's because Comcast just clobbered
>>> all our email accounts and I'm too miserable from the flu to fight with
>>> them just now.)
>>
>> So you heard that 'sound' too, but pulled the trigger on the post
>> anyway?
>
> You heard my excuse - what's yours?
>
> There's nothing wrong with suggesting commercial solutions in this group
> - we all learn that way. But turning up your nose at fitted drawers is
> just reverse snobbery.
Instead of getting all disingenuous and defensive about your already
self admitted "snippy" behavior, how about simply answering the question
you got all "snippy" about regarding drawers intended for a kitchen:
On 1/18/2013 1:49 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>> I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider,
>> before you make a decision about your drawer side thickness,
>> the type of drawer slides you will be using.
>
> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
Better for what?
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/19/2013 7:48 AM, dpb wrote:
> I'm certainly glad I'm in position to not have to be in production any
> longer--I'm too crotchety in my old age to do anything any way but how
> _I_ want it.. :)
You're damned sure that!
... then, so am I. :)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
>"Swingman" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with solid
wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't use
drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would drawers in a
fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank Klauz presents on his
dovetail DVD.
Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide in and
out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but they work with
the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use slides I would have had to
build structure in the cabinet to which slides could be mounted--that would
have been an annoying venture.
John
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:30:23 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>>> Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
>>> you're using no drawer sides at all. ;)
>>
>> Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
>> difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
>> Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
>> over more than one...
>
>
>>> With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
>>> modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
>>> the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.
>>
>> The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch... :)
>
>:) Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
>the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
>sounds.
>
>With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
>deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
>material_.
>
>IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
>chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
>dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:
>
> Drawer Width
>DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
>5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
>9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
>1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)
>
>Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)
>
>Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
>no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
>blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).
>
>In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
>interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
>the older style slides.
>
>And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
Being a contractor you'll knock heads here on a few things. Being a
good contractor you give your clients choices. Some are doing a quick
turn, some are building a dream house, and some are on a strict
budget. Before I got hurt I was an electrical contractor and found
the best way to bid was to present the options as it sounds like you
do. That way at least if they went for the lowest price you might get
a chance to educate them. If they were't interested in discussion
they might not be a good customer. Every remodel brings problems.
Sounds like you do an excellent job of showing the customer their
choices.
Mike M
Mike M
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:43:28 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..." :)
>>
>> I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with
>> solid wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I
>> didn't use drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I
>> would drawers in a fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach
>> Frank Klauz presents on his dovetail DVD.
>>
>> Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide
>> in and out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but
>> they work with the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use
>> slides I would have had to build structure in the cabinet to which
>> slides could be mounted--that would have been an annoying venture.
>
>I applaud your work and am not trying to rain on your parade; however, your
>drawers *ALSO* need an internal structure upon which they slide.
Ayup, both top and bottom, and the wider drawers came with a central
slider on the bottom. There's a strut on the bottom of the drawer
which slides on it.
--
The problem with borrowing money from China is
that thirty minutes later, you feel broke again.
--Steve Bridges as Obama
On 1/18/2013 7:25 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Gramp's shop wrote:
>> 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
>> local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
>
> Either one but one may be preferable depending...
>
> The 7/16 is fine as long as it is ample for whatever joint you intend to
> use.
>
> The 3/4 is fine regardless of the joint. Especially if you intend to get
> max usefulness from the drawer. I almost always partition drawers by
> cutting 1/4" evenly spaced "V"s into the sides. That lets me easily make
> moveable partitions.
>
> I also very frequently fit drawers - even very shallow drawers - with
> sliding trays. I do that by using 3/4" sides and making a wide 1/4" rabbet
> along the inside top of them. The rabbet is slightly wider than the tray
> will be deep and the bottom supports the tray. The rabbet also removes the
> top portion of the "V"s for the bottom part of the drawer. The trays can be
> either lift out (same size as drawer inside) or sliding (one half or less
> than the drawer inside); I generally do the latter.
>
> "A place for everything and everything in its place" :-)
+1
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/20/2013 8:53 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:11:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>>> Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
>>> drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.
>>
>> Better for what?
>>
>> My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
>> not furniture drawers.
>
> Last I looked, this was the "recreational woodworking" group, not the
> "commercial kitchen cabinet builders" group :-).
So - and upon your last look - when a "recreational woodworker" asks a
question/expresses an interest in a subject, only a "recreational"
woodworker can answer in this "recreational woodworking" group?
Interesting interpretation of the purpose of this group you got there.
And here all along I was thinking it was global warming, politics, the
price of gas, and gun control ... go figure, eh?
> (If that sounds a little snippy, it's because Comcast just clobbered all
> our email accounts and I'm too miserable from the flu to fight with them
> just now.)
So you heard that 'sound' too, but pulled the trigger on the post anyway?
Nice ...
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/18/2013 10:51 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> I may be building all new drawers for my kitchen soon, so I am very
> interested in this issue. My current drawers, in 1950's stick built
> cabinets, are 1/2" stock. I do not plan on replacing the cabinets,
> just building drawers and doors.
On 1/18/2013 11:09 AM, Swingman wrote:
> 5/8" drawer thickness, IMO, gives you the best of both worlds, so is
> worth considering for your new kitchen drawers.
I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
you will be using.
While it is possible to use just about any thickness you want with some
drawer slides; manufacturers of the modern undermount, self/soft close
drawer slides will make it much easier for you to dimension your drawer
widths for your cabinet opening if you stick to standard 1/2, 5/8 and
3/4 ... but be sure to double check.
In many cases, you may have to buy a specific submodel of the same slide
for the corresponding thickness, so don't assume anything in that regard.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)