Skinny pins in hand-cut dovetails

[Mike in Orangeville]

I recently bought the whole whack of Rob Cosman's videos (9 of them, I think... almost as many as he has kids!) and it has been pretty obvious that he's a big fan of skinny pins in his dovetails.
I'm not so big a fan. I understand that skinny pins make it obvious that the dovetail was done by hand, so the joint can't be confused with a machine-cut joint, but quite frankly I'd be pleased if someone thought my joints were uniform enough to have been machine cut, rather than the result of an orangutan being handed a hacksaw as therapy for a degenerative nerve disease. But maybe that's just me. 8-)

What say the rest of you?

[Brad in Ottawa]

Couldn't of said it better Mike!

I'd be pleased if someone thought my joints looked to be the product of someone's degenerative nerve disease, rather than the result of an orangutan being given a machine and a button to press! :P

Honestly, I like the look of thin pins but they have their place. I think at the end of the day: the number of pins, spacing of the pins and the size can all be great design elements that can dramatically change the appearance of a dovetailed joint. (I also don't get too caught up in the uniformity of the angles between all of the dovetails.) How's that for sitting on the fence?

Brad

PS - I'm glad you didn't start a debate regarding if the number of pins should be odd or even!

[Chris in Pickering]

I dont care how good you are at hand cut dovetails, you will not be as good as my Akeda DT jig. So if you want flawless fat dovetails I say use a jig. If you want the hand cut look of skinny pins (< 1/8" is best IMO), then you must hand cut.
Why hand cut fat pins? The only way anyone will know they are hand cut is because they will not look as nice as jig cut...

[Denis Chénard in Ottawa]

Originally Posted by Chris in Pickering

I dont care how good you are at hand cut dovetails, you will not be as good as my Akeda DT jig. So if you want flawless fat dovetails I say use a jig.

I will assume that you are not trying to insult anyone here, but I beg to differ strongly. Hand cut dovetails can be as flawless as machine made ones, examples abound. Even I manage to make them once in a while...

Originally Posted by Chris in Pickering

If you want the hand cut look of skinny pins (< 1/8" is best IMO), then you must hand cut.
Why hand cut fat pins? The only way anyone will know they are hand cut is because they will not look as nice as jig cut...

If you define "nice" as consistent robotic monotonicity, then I guess I can't argue with your statement. Personally, I can spot machine DTs from ten feet away, and they detract from the character of a hand-made piece. It's like being half-pregnant...

My philosophy is that anything visible on a piece of furniture should reflect the craftsmanship of the maker. If it's not visible and does not detract from the piece's integrity, then it's fair game to use machines. I use a hollow chisel mortiser for my mortises, but I hand-plane surfaces and cut my DTs by hand. If I wanted expediency I would use a CNC and a Timesaver, and I'd be able to make production batches, each and everyone of the pieces looking consistent. And dull.

DC

Regarding hand-cut fat pins, just out of curiosity, how much time does it take you to DT a 4" high drawer with your Akeda (two through and two half-blind DTs), without knowing in advance how thick exactly the stock is, with no router already set up for cutting the pins and tails, and with a pin size layout unknown ahead of time? I'll bet ya that Klausz can whip that drawer faster than anyone with a jig, heck I might even be able to do the same...

[Jeff in vancouver]

Originally Posted by Denis Chénard in Ottawa

I will assume that you are not trying to insult anyone here, but I beg to differ strongly. Hand cut dovetails can be as flawless as machine made ones, examples abound. Even I manage to make them once in a while...



If you define "nice" as consistent robotic monotonicity, then I guess I can't argue with your statement. Personally, I can spot machine DTs from ten feet away, and they detract from the character of a hand-made piece. It's like being half-pregnant...

My philosophy is that anything visible on a piece of furniture should reflect the craftsmanship of the maker. If it's not visible and does not detract from the piece's integrity, then it's fair game to use machines. I use a hollow chisel mortiser for my mortises, but I hand-plane surfaces and cut my DTs by hand. If I wanted expediency I would use a CNC and a Timesaver, and I'd be able to make production batches, each and everyone of the pieces looking consistent. And dull.

DC

Regarding hand-cut fat pins, just out of curiosity, how much time does it take you to DT a 4" high drawer with your Akeda (two through and two half-blind DTs), without knowing in advance how thick exactly the stock is, with no router already set up for cutting the pins and tails, and with a pin size layout unknown ahead of time? I'll bet ya that Klausz can whip that drawer faster than anyone with a jig, heck I might even be able to do the same...

Lets not get into this speed argument, on one drawer a hand cutter may win, but after that the jig wins every time.

[clumsy]

I never make any smaller than a quarter inch.That is the size of my smallest chisel, and I have never felt that making them larger was a reflection on my ability. Generally IMHO, dovetails are not really meant to be seen anyway, so I go for a functional size.

[Mike in Orangeville]

Originally Posted by clumsy

I never make any smaller than a quarter inch.That is the size of my smallest chisel, and I have never felt that making them larger was a reflection on my ability. Generally IMHO, dovetails are not really meant to be seen anyway, so I go for a functional size.

You make two excellent points. The first is that the width of the base of the pin can only be as thin as your narrowest chisel. In 1/2" thick material with a 1:7 (average, about 8 degrees) slope, a 1/4" base on the pin gives you about .100" (less than an eighth of an inch) at the thin end of the pin, if my math is correctly done in my head at 5am, and my suggestion is that that is a bit skinny. There was a scene in Cosman's video "The Alan Peters Approach" where Cosman was using one of his own pieces of furniture as an example, and Peters was not so fond of the skinny pins on it, in particular at the edge of the top where what you saw was the ends of the tails, with just the thinnest knife-edge pin ends between them. As a strictly visual design element I think that a 1:3 or similar ratio between pin edge thickness and tail width would have looked better. It's the ratio that I feel is important. If the pins were beefy but the tails were 4" wide I'd have a similar complaint.
Your second point is that dovetails aren't meant to be seen. This is completely true, of course. They were a utilitarian joint, and in the old days they would be hidden from view on fine furniture. Nowadays it is a point of pride to have dovetails, so the balance has swung somewhat, but that doesn't change the history of the joint.


I guess my bottom line is that instead of having the visible edge of the pin being as fine as your saw can cut, having it 3/16" or so still makes it impractical to cut with a router, and it makes it look better on normally-sized work, in my opinion.

[Brad in Ottawa]

Originally Posted by Denis Chénard in Ottawa

I'll bet ya that Klausz can whip that drawer faster than anyone with a jig, heck I might even be able to do the same...

Speaking of Frank... just wanted to let Mike know that he wasn't alone in his preference for bigger pins. Frank likes them that way too according to an interview I read in a WW magazine that is not CWW.

[Jim in Burlington]

I think the size of the dovetail should match the size of the drawer. Getting all the parts of the drawer the right thickness then deciding what size the pins should be. Most of the antique furniture that I have seen and own does not have tiny dovetails. Cosman's video's can be a bit much to watch all in one seating. BTW all my dovetails look hand made because they are uneven and have gaps.

[Denis Chénard in Ottawa]

Originally Posted by Brad in Ottawa

Speaking of Frank... just wanted to let Mike know that he wasn't alone in his preference for bigger pins. Frank likes them that way too according to an interview I read in a WW magazine that is not CWW.

Frank was trained in the "old school" system, where DTs were viewed more as an utilitarian structural joint, and I remember him saying that he likes to have roughly equal sized pins and tails. And they're probably stronger that way too.

But the old school didn't have the machine made joints at their disposal that we do now, so basically there were no alternatives to the DTs back then. And since time equaled money as much back then as it does now, having no alternative they had to whip those fast. Apart from drawer fronts, most of these dovetail joints were hidden, so there was not much point in being fancy or even exact.

Nowadays we have more joint choices, so the dovetail, being more demanding in its construction, has de facto become a mark of craftsmanship. And making them fancier than in the past further elevates the joint and its maker. A router and a jig can't get you there.

Just my opinion...

DC

[clumsy]

I guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I have never made any part of a pin or tail smaller than 1/4 inch. I lean to chopping out the waste, especially on smaller joints.
I agree that porpotion is very important if the joint is ever seen, even if it is only when a drawer is opened. Usually my pins and tails are about the same size though I have tried a 1.6 to 1 ratio and found it pleasing to the eye.
Generally speaking I find that if a joint is mechanically sound it looks pretty good too.
The bottom line though is that your work is your work, and should reflect your taste.
Rob is a great teacher, and a genuinally nice guy, but he would probably be the first to tell you that he doesn't have the final answer either.

[Mike in Orangeville]

Originally Posted by clumsy

I guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I have never made any part of a pin or tail smaller than 1/4 inch.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I understand you, now.

[pmkierst]

I think you'll find that furniture type and origin also affect pin size. As far as I can tell, the english seem to prefer extremely small pins (on very thin drawer sides) for drawers. Rob seems to have been quite influenced by the english, via Alan Peters, and as such may like small pins. Personally, I like small pins, nothing to do with hand cut/machine cut; I think they look more elegant and interesting. That said, it doesn't mean wider ones are automatically ugly or anything. Every piece is different.

As far as jigs go, there is still plenty of room for structural dovetails which are not seen; dovetailed carcases, rails in to legs, etc. These add strength to a piece and help certain construction techniques. They don't have to be limited to drawers.

[Mike in Orangeville]

Originally Posted by pmkierst

I think you'll find that furniture type and origin also affect pin size. As far as I can tell, the english seem to prefer extremely small pins (on very thin drawer sides) for drawers. Rob seems to have been quite influenced by the english, via Alan Peters, and as such may like small pins.

Well, he seems to like them a fair bit smaller than Alan Peters does, judging by the scene I mentioned earlier in his video "The Alan Peters Approach", but that may have been influenced by where the dovetail was used. The piece of furniture was a chest of drawers with solid casework (i.e. the sides and top were one board each) and the top was dovetailed to the sides. The dovetail had such skinny pins that it didn't look, from the side, like a dovetail, rather it looked almost like a butt joint except for the half-pins and the hint (!) of pin edges. From the top it was unmistakable, of course, but from the sides you were seeing the end-grain of the tail board, and that's pretty much all you saw, and Peters commented (graciously) that he wouldn't have done it that way.

Personally, I like small pins, nothing to do with hand cut/machine cut; I think they look more elegant and interesting. That said, it doesn't mean wider ones are automatically ugly or anything. Every piece is different.

I think that in a half-blind situation where the tail-board end-grain is hidden that skinny pins can, indeed, look elegant.

[pmkierst]

Ah, yes casework -- and through dovetails -- is indeed a different. Actually, I am not a big fan of exposed dovetails in most case work; I like the traditional moldings that were used to hide them. Even in the ever popular blanket chest, I am only so-so on exposed dovetails, though I have seen a couple where it looked very good. In that case, very fine tails will indeed give the exact thing you say; looks like a butt joint and is not so good looking; just dovetail wankery usually if you ask me. Of course different woods, craftsman and designs can break all this down differently.

[Mike in Orangeville]

Originally Posted by pmkierst

Ah, yes casework -- and through dovetails -- is indeed a different. Actually, I am not a big fan of exposed dovetails in most case work;

I agree. There are, of course, situations where they seem appropriate, like tool chests and other 'utilitarian' situations. I understand that some people delight in using contrasting woods and intricate dovetails like houndstooth etc. and making them design elements. That's a stylistic choice, and can't really be argued with. Personal taste is just that - personal. Maybe I'll have to try making a few projects a few different ways and see which ones make me happiest.