Full Chisel Blog

is a standard set for ‘reproduction’ furniture, but I don’t think that is going to happen.  I posted on WoodCentral and got several good responses (and one silly one) and have decided that it was indeed the nightmare I thought it would be. 

 

There is a difficulty in categorizing the stuff, disagreement on what the standards should be, on what variations are acceptable and many other issues.  Without a way to enforce any standards, if they could be agreed upon, such as a guild or society or association, the standards would be irrelevant. 

 

And as some pointed out many customers just don’t care as long as it looks good.  This is too bad as it doesn’t give proper credit to people who actually make ‘reproductions’, they are forced into the same category as modern furniture factories that make ‘reproductions*’, and that isn’t fair. But then again when is life ‘fair’? 

 

Lacking a standard the word ‘reproduction’ has little meaning as it has been corrupted to mean anything that looks like something old.  It is interesting that this is only relevant today as in the past people were not confronted with this issue.  They did however make ‘reproductions’, take Second Empire furniture, from classical works published in the early nineteenth century.  Colonial Revival popular during the centennial of America, varies greatly from the original colonial furniture that they were reproducing.  While outward appearances are similar, the construction techniques mirrored the technology of that time period,  Dowels instead of Mortise and Tenon joints, machine woven cane for chair seats, pointy screws and wire nails. 

 

One of the things about making reproduction furniture that I find very handy is that the work has already been done for me.  I don’t need to come up with a design, the old piece I am copying is in existence and all I need to do is reproduce the piece.  I don’t need to guess what tools they used as I can see by looking at the piece what tools it took to build the original (in most cases).  I know enough original techniques that I can employ to achieve the desired result, a ‘reproduction’.  Using similar materials as the original, it would be a legitimate reproduction and could be called such with impunity. 

 

I can’t compete with someone that uses modern tools, materials and techniques to build ‘reproductions’.  The big box furniture stores sells ‘reproductions’ and that is what we have to compete against and that just isn’t right.  Without standards this is the state of the trade and that is just too bad.  But calling both what I make and what is available at stores ‘reproductions’ is like comparing apples and dominoes.

 

 

When I am making reproductions, I have removed myself from the equation.  I don’t add anything to the mix as the design is already established, the tools and materials are known and the traditional techniques ensconced.  My particular work surroundings and conditions allow me to get into the ‘character’ or ‘persona’ of a nineteenth century Cabinet Maker.  After all I am ‘role-playing’ one all day long.  I wear the clothing, eat the food, talk the part, so it is a total immersion experience.  While I admit this is not necessary to accomplish the same task of making a proper reproduction, it does help me do what I do.

  

 

And there are those rare moments when I am engrossed in working, concentrating on the task at hand, when it all comes together and I can’t tell when I am.

 

Stephen

The Problem as I see it, with Reproduction Furniture of the 19^th Century or even earlier stuff is that everything being reproduced is from museum and they tend to collect high end pieces owned by terribly wealthy people.  It is the best, finest and fanciest furniture ever made and reflects so little of the vast majority of furniture that was used by almost everybody else.

 

 

Museum specimens are wonderful study examples but I have a feeling those pieces reflect less than 1% of the furniture made and actually used.  Shaker furniture seems to be the exception, although I am not a big fan of their furniture.  While there are some fine examples there are also some really ugly Shaker furniture.  I always think of this one chest with a drawer underneath, it looked like a cabinet giving birth to another cabinet, not very sightly.

 

 

And that high end furniture reflects the high end life that the few could enjoy.  For the rest of us there is usable, serviceable and practical furniture that was used and used up.  Not that there isn’t some fine examples of common furniture, I have seen hundreds and hundreds including many well done, finely constructed and thought out pieces built in the latest style and fashion, made for the average customer of the period.

 

 

The problem as I see it is that the woodworker wants to make the very best and many do and get (or at least ask) a high price for their products, again putting them in the context of the past where only the wealthy can afford the best.  A Chippendale High Boy, a Ball and Claw Chair with cabriole legs are wonderful pieces of furniture but I am fairly sure most people can’t afford them.  That doesn’t mean you can make them for yourself, but I think this type of furniture reproduction sets the bar a little too high for most woodworkers.

 

 

And while I could make either of the above, I never will, I have no desire to own one and less desire to make them.  I prefer to make furniture that is indicative of what was made and actually used in everyday life of the common person.  I think I can gain more insight into the past by studying this type of furniture rather than the high end stuff that causes everyone to drool.

 

 

 We also have a twentieth century work ethic that is totally unlike that of a century or two ago.  We work an eight hour day, in the past they worked as long as there was daylight and burned oil on certain occasions like coffin building which had to be attended to immediately.  We now know the difference, back then it was just what was done.  You worked when you could see and didn’t when you couldn’t.

 

 

To our ancestors it was both the process and the product, the process had to be done and the product could be sold or traded for what was needed.  There were standards and fair market value for commodities in the nineteenth century and earlier.  You could buy pork for $0.14 a pound, nails were $0.59 a pound or a Windsor side chair for $4.00 or a Bureau (chest of drawers) was $26.00.  In the late 1850′s in the West the U.S. Army paid $3.00 a day for skilled laborers, above the wages available in settlements of around $2.00 a day.

 

 

I make reproduction nineteenth century furniture, using the same tools, similar materials and traditional techniques of the originating craftsmen, whose furniture I am copying.  I don’t add anything that they didn’t have into the mix, but one thing I can not quite get is the mine set of cabinetmakers of 150 years ago.  If I step on a nail, I will get a shot, I drink clean water and have antiseptics, things not available to our ancestors.

 

 

I work an eight hour day, albeit mostly in the nineteenth century, I know back in my mind I will go home to central heat and air conditioning, a big flat screen and laptop, cold clean beverages and unprecedented medical care.  I can get close to the mind set but there is still that reassurance that if a wound goes septic, I can do something about it and survive.

 

 

They also worked smartly or didn’t stay in business.  They produced quality product or didn’t have any customers.  Certainly crap was produced, it was of bad construction, got used up and thrown away, well actually burned.  Common furniture was produced in great number and on occasion the shop would produce a fancy piece for a well to do customer, but by and large most of the production was for furniture to be used.

 

 

Now our ancestors were not hayseeds that just fell off the cabbage wagon, they were usually well read and liked the latest fashion and style popular in the East or in Europe.  Trends are reflected in the styles of furniture that was available in the time.  Some high style influences can be seen in common everyday furniture as people like nice stuff, they always have and they always will.  But they also wanted good serviceable and inexpensive furniture, stuff they could afford and would actually use.

 

 

 

Can we accurately reproduce the furniture from the past, well we can get fairly close, but there will be something lacking.  It may not be noticeable, it may be difficult to discern and maybe no one can tell the difference.  But there is, we are making this stuff, even if everything else is exactly right, we just can’t know the exact context in which this stuff was made.  And maybe we don’t need to know that, but the more we can know of the framework and matrix in which this stuff was produced, the more history that we are familiar with, the more information we have will make us better at accurately reproducing furniture from the past. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earlier furniture from the eighteenth century and before presents a whole different problem.  If you are going to make reproduction furniture then you need to use all of the tools, materials and techniques of the period.  This means that almost all of the work has to be prepared by hand in order to call it Reproduction Furniture. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the nineteenth century it is a different story.  Much of the material was provided by a saw and or planing mill, so the boards would come sawn and in some instances planed.  The Wadsworth planer, the Blanchard lathe, table saws, band saws, sash saws, grinders, powered by human, water, animal or even steam.  Many shops in the nineteenth century had steam engines powering their equipment.  I get a lot of my lumber from an old sawmill that was originally powered by steam but later converted.  The saw is the same the power source is different. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we make reproduction furniture it needs to be done using the same methods as the originating craftsmen in terms of materials, techniques and tools in order to call it reproduction furniture, if we don’t, it isn’t.  Is the power source the issue, I don’t know, but I am looking for a steam engine to power my turning lathe, if the freight wasn’t so high having it shipped by ox cart from St. Louis.

 

 

Stephen