Drawer Bottom Question

R

rchampagne

Well-known member
Hi All,
I have been involved in a discussion on another forum regarding drawer bottoms.  One of the more experienced woodworkers on that site answered a question about how a dovetailed drawer should be built, and showed a picture of a drawer he had made recently.  The drawer bottom was chamfered and slid into grooves in the drawer side.  I have seen a lot of drawers done this way in period originals.  However, he had used a panel raising shaper cutter to bevel the bottom, leaving a square edge to engage in the groove.  I posted that while I appreciated that this method should work fine, that I had never seen an antique drawer made this way, and that a plain beveled edge fit into the groove was one of the more common ways drawer bottoms had been made in the 18th century.  Another poster commented that to make a drawer bottom with just a bevel (withouth the square edge) would result in a weaker drawer, and that leaving off the squared edge was likely something done in factories.  My question here is, has anyone seen an antique drawer bottom made in the method I have described, ie, bevelled but with a square edge?  I am unaware of any period examples.  Hopefully I have explained this with clarity. 
Thanks,
Rob
 
Chamfered drawer bottoms were common from the second quarter of the eighteenth-century. Fielded drawer bottoms didn't appear until the fourth quarter (with or without a central muntin). The introduction of the muntin was probably responsible for the general adoption of fielded bottoms.

Full size eighteenth-century drawer construction didn't include grooves in the drawer sides, only in the drawer fronts. The drawer bottom was nailed into rebates in the drawer sides and the runners were then glued over the drawer sides/bottom board. The sides of small interior drawers were occasionally grooved, but most were rebated and without runners.

With the late eighteenth-century fielded drawer bottom, the runner was glued into the corner formed by the fielding and the drawer side and didn't span the drawer side and bottom board as previously.

Within the context of the argument, a chamfered edge would be stronger than a fielded perimeter as the bevel runs right to the edge whereas a fielded perimeter has an unsupported tongue. However, in the case of eighteenth-century fielded drawer bottoms, the tongue is well supported by the glued-in runner.
 
As a caveat to what Jack Plane writes, American practice was not always the same as English practice so it is wise to double check American examples. In and around Philadelphia you can find very strong German influences as well as English.  Regional variations can come into play as well.
When I chamfer a drawer bottom I use a plane with a strongly cambered iron, this gives a slight concave curve rather than a flat chamfer which gives a slightly better fit, I can't say that it was a period practice though.
None of which answers your question.
 
Rob, I have worked on hundreds of chests from many different regions and countries and have yet to see an original with your so called "square edge". I have seen many like Jack's description also.
 
You will also see segmented blocks added to the angled drawer bottom and drawer sides as an extra bearing surface. Different blocking can tie pieces together in three dimensions regional, era, and depth of knowledge of wood and wood movement involved with period construction. I have a 1790's Baltimore chest with original blocking and no cracks or checks with a blocked drawer bottom. Sorry but I have tried posting pictures but am unable to do so.
 
The experienced woodworker says he has seen period examples of beveled drawer bottoms with square edges.  Just the same as you would get using a panel raising shaper cutter to make kitchen cabinet doors, etc.  My opinion was that this was not a common period practice, due to the extra time and effort involved in shaping a bevel, then cutting a rabbet into the bevel to create the square edge (or tongue), then fairing out the bevel again.  Someone suggested that a panel raising plane could have been used, but I have not seen one that will produce a square edge such as this, only a straight feathered edge, such as one would find on, well, raised panels.  Making a drawer bottom in this way seems like a fine way to go, but I would not use this method on an actual reproduction, as I am not aware of it being used in period examples.  There are, of course, as Jeff points out, many many different ways that drawers have been made over the years. 
Rob
 
Could the experienced woodworker be seeing a "compressed" angled drawer bottom which appears to be squared today? Not trying to cause a problem just asking a question.
 
Forgive me, what do you mean by a chamfered bottom with a square edge and a beveled bottom without a square edge? Can you post a end view sketch?

I bevel or chamfer my bottoms with a plane that has a curved iron.

Thanks.
Dennis Bork
 
Rob,

It would be interesting to see a sketch or photos of what exactly this discussion is about.  Unfortunately, the vocabulary of woodworking is very imprecise.  (for example, the word "dry".)  So, I will add my bit.  I, too, have never seen the underside of an American drawer bottom of the pre-industrial period made with a square edge.  I am assuming the "edge" is a "shoulder" and the result is a drawer bottom whose underside looks like a raised panel.  I have seen such drawer bottoms on pieces of furniture produced in the early industrial period.  They were obviously produced by a shaper with a type of panel raising cutter.  Often, these early pieces of factory-produced furniture look exactly like hand made pieces of only a few years before.  Also, early factory work incorporated a lot of hand work, which can complicate things when trying to assess their age.  PSP
 
Thank you for the diagram! Blocking under left example will add life to the drawer. The right example I have never seen but with that said ? sounds like a pain to produce also and then why? It does sound like something John Shearer would do but maybe not.
 
Woodmolds, thanks for posting the drawing.  That makes it a lot clearer than I was able to do.  Jeff, this was my point.  If all you had were hand tools at your disposal, why go to the time and trouble, when the one on the left works just fine?  The experienced woodworker stated that he would never make a drawer bottom or raised panel in this way because it is inferior to the way he does it.  I noted that I have not seen a drawer bottom itself fail due to this construction. 
 
Woodmolds,

Thank you for the drawing.

Rob,

Like you, I have never seen a period drawer with its bottom edge shaped in the fashion shown.  It would have added to the time and labor, especially using hand tools, with no real benefit. Making an issue of differences in strength of these two methods strikes me as looking for a problem where none exists.  I have seen a lot of different forms of structural failure in drawers, but none that I could see were the result of a style of chamfering.  Jeff's as yet unillustrated example of segmented blocking will show what I believe is the most common way of reinforcing the drawer bottom/side joint if that is a matter of concern.  PSP
 
A few days ago I was going to add that I also had never seen an early hand made drawer with both the chamfer and the squared edge on the bottom board. Well as of today I can no longer say that. Today I started repair work on a small two drawer, drop leaf work table. It has no machine marks at all and you can see hand tool marks on the non-show surfaces. I'm not sure how old it is but my guess is between 1835 and 1850, and was probably made by a second migration craftsman.
 
I'm not sure where it was made, but it's made of cherry, pine and a third wood that may be poplar, it has ball turned legs. I would call it a vernacular work or sewing table.
 

Attachments

  • 115.JPG
    115.JPG
    68 KB · Views: 73
  • 116.JPG
    116.JPG
    61.2 KB · Views: 70
The entire drawer looks like it was made by someone who didn't have a grasp of traditional cabinetmaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top