The Cabinetmaker in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg: Giving Attention to the City's Chief Craftsmen in the Furniture Way; And to Their Tools & Methods of WorkingHeuvel, Johannes
History
The Cabinetmaker in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg: Giving Attention to the City's Chief Craftsmen in the Furniture Way; And to Their Tools & Methods of Working
Heuvel, Johannes
Furniture making; Furniture workers -- Virginia -- Williamsburg; Furniture, Colonial -- Virginia -- Williamsburg
On a bench plane the bottom or sole of the stock was flat, of course,
and this was particularly important for a jointer, whose sole had to be
perfectly true. But the sole of a molding plane was shaped to fit the
curve or angle or combination of surfaces its blade would produce. Since
even a simple quarter-round molding might on occasion be needed in
several different sizes for different uses, the well-equipped
cabinetmaker would need perhaps nine planes right there.
George Washington’s well-known order of goods from London for the
furnishing of Mount Vernon in 1759 included in a long list of tools not
only a considerable number of bench and fitting planes, but about 50
molding planes: “10 pr Hollows & Rounds, 4 two Square Asticles
[astragals], 6 Ogees, 1 Snipes Bill, 4 Quarter Rounds, 4 Sash Plains, 3
Bead Ditto, 6 Ovelos.” To these a cabinetmaker would have added ogive,
reed, flute, beaded flute, fillet and fascia combinations, and other
molding profiles favored on eighteenth-century furniture. Remembering
that a number of these shapes too, might have been needed in more than
one size, Dickinson’s 81 planes begin to seem hardly enough.
[Illustration: _Several shapes of molding planes, with the irons of
corresponding profile; also a moving fillister in the lower part of
the picture. This illustration and the two that follow it are taken
from a three-volume eighteenth-century French manual on woodworking
by Andre-Jacob Roubo._]
_BIG SAWS AND LITTLE CHISELS_
The familiar carpenter’s handsaw, with a blade wide and stiff enough to
cut on the push stroke, was not unknown in colonial times and Dickinson
apparently had one. But various kinds of frame and back saws were much
more common. Dickinson had one large frame saw—its valuation at £5
indicates it must have been of good quality as well as good-sized—that
was probably a pit saw. This was a two-man affair for ripping logs into
boards. A whip saw (one of these was also listed) was like a modern
two-man crosscut saw.
Dickinson also possessed a small frame saw, a bow saw, a “tenant”
(tenon) saw, a panel saw, a sash saw, and three dovetail saws. The
latter three, called “dovetailed” in the inventory, were back saws with
short blades and very fine teeth. The tenon saw might have been either a
back or a frame saw, as both varieties were used in cutting the tenons
for mortise joints. Vagaries in craft nomenclature leave us in doubt
about the precise appearance of many tools, including Dickinson’s panel
and sash saws.
Except that it was doubtless made of wood rather than steel and had a
somewhat different chuck, Dickinson’s bit stock would have resembled the
boring brace in any modern tool box. His “20 bitts,” however, probably
lacked the spiral shank of their present descendants and thus required
considerably more skill on the part of the user to bore a straight hole.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account