Why Thin Pins

Conan the Librarian wrote...
> Ed Bailen wrote:
>
> > ... why would you want to make a joint with
> > thin pins?
>
> To paraphrase Patrick Leach, "because you can".

Perfect!

> thin pins are more interesting to look at and look less
> like they could have been cut by some machine.

I think this is often true today, but thin pins have been around longer
than machine tools.

There's another reason in blind dovetails: less end grain is shown.

Also, I don't know if there was any ancient reasoning to this effect, but
thin pins, especially irregularly-spaced ones, create a less
"interrupted" look in both the face and end views of the piece. Just my
ha'penceworth.

Jim

Exactly it tells the observer they are handcut, mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2

"Conan the Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Bailen wrote:
>
> > I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> > of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> > them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> > thin pins?
>
> To paraphrase Patrick Leach, "because you can".
>
> > The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> > and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> Yep. But thin pins are more interesting to look at and look less
> like they could have been cut by some machine.
>
>
> Chuck Vance

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 08:51:59 -0700, charlie b <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ed Bailen wrote:
>>
>> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
>> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
>> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
>> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
>> and tails, wouldn't t it?
>>
>> Ed Bailen
>
> You'll notice that when thin pins are used there's usually more
> of them and often more concentrated at the top and bottom ot
> the drawer. (go here for why - all one line so watch line wrap)
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/DoveTailDrawer3.html
>
> More pins, more common surface area, stronger joint.
>
> There's often, though not always, a very good reason for
> doing joints a certain way. Folks have been making things
> out of wood for a very long time. What works well gets
> passed along, What doesn't gets lost.
>
> charlie b

Thanks for the link, Charlie. It is a good site to bookmark.

Regards,
Ed Bailen

Ed Bailen wrote:
>
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> Ed Bailen

You'll notice that when thin pins are used there's usually more
of them and often more concentrated at the top and bottom ot
the drawer. (go here for why - all one line so watch line wrap)

http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/DoveTailDrawer3.html

More pins, more common surface area, stronger joint.

There's often, though not always, a very good reason for
doing joints a certain way. Folks have been making things
out of wood for a very long time. What works well gets
passed along, What doesn't gets lost.

charlie b

If you want to see some spectacular pins, check out Rob Cosman's (LN)
houndstooth dovetails. :-)

"Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> Ed Bailen

The hand cut variety may not be as rare as you think. There certainly are a
lot of dovetail saws being sold. Just check out the LN booths at the wood
shows. I have a Leigh Jig that I seldom use, but I keep it because I never
know when I might want it. Learning to make good hand cut dovetails was a
quest for me, and I just prefer them. I vary the widths of the pins as the
mood dictates. If I'm doing a some Shaker Shelves, wide tails would be used.
Shadow boxes or drawers would call for finer tails. A Shaker candle box gets
something in between.

My current quest is hand cut through tenons.

:-)

"Jeffrey Thunder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ed Bailen <[email protected]> writes:
> > I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> > of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> > them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> > thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> > and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> I'm not so sure I buy any "this way is stronger than that way"
> arguments when it comes to dovetail joints. Except for
> extreme examples, I'd be surprised if dovetails laid out
> one way would be more beneficial from a strength standpoint
> than dovetails laid out some other way.
>
> I think it really does come down to aesthetics. Here it
> really is interesting, I think. Today some value
> handcut dovetails (thin or not) over machine cut dovetails,
> though I expect only if it were somehow clear they were, indeed,
> handcut not machine cut. One way to demonstrate this is to
> handcut dovetails in such a way that no readily available
> machine could duplicate the layout.
>
> But imagine yourself travelling back in time three or four
> hundred years with a dovetailing machine. I bet your
> machine cut dovetails would be all the rage. After all,
> any monarch could get stuff with excellent handcut dovetails.
> But how many could get stuff with your machine cut dovetails?
> In other words, it's not the handmade craftsmanship that is so
> valuable, per se; it's the relative rarity/novelty which
> is valued. Nowadays, handcut dovetails have a corner on
> the rare/novelty market, which make them more "aesthetically
> pleasing" to some (most? all?).
>
> And where do those funky machine cut joints fit into the
> picture? I'm thinking of the "bears ears" templates
> and the like which are available for the Leigh jig, here.
> Those are certainly more novel/rare than typical dovetails.
> Are they more or less aesthetically pleasing? Certainly
> some get excited by them, though I'm sure there are some
> on this very newsgroup who don't think they're all that
> great.
>
> --
> Jeff Thunder
> Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
> Northern Illinois Univ.
> jthunder at math dot niu dot edu
>

<rubs hands, sits down with popcorn>

Hey boyz! The imperial vs metric thread is coming back!

<G>
Greg

"Conan the Librarian" wrote in message
snip
> That's nice, but I wasn't talking about converting an inch to
> millimeters, I was talking about which is *easier* to get more precise
> with when *laying* *out* *dovetails*. You may find it easier to
> divide by 16ths, 32nds, 8ths, etc., but I find it easier to divide by
> increments of 10.

"James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove this)citlink.net> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> And another thing! LOL It makes sense to me also that thinner pins were
> probably introduced as a way of making the joint more delicate and
> interesting visually.

I think the idea of them looking more delicate is a good point. I
know when I first started chopping dovetails I tended to lay them out
at about a 3x1 ratio. Now they look much too blocky to me.

Somewhere along the way I started doing layout by taking a 1/8" or
1/4" chisel (depending on the size of the piece) and using that as my
starting point for pin width. From there I'd pick a width that was
somewhere around 4-5 times more than pin width and see how many tails
that would give me (remembering that you have one more pin than
tails).

Sometimes I'll even go ahead and lay them out on graph paper just
to be sure I like the look. (Also, FWIW, it is much easier to do this
layout in metric; 1/8"'s and 1/16"'s, etc. don't divide as easily as
multiples of 10.)

I also remember reading someone recommend that you always have an
odd number of tails (presumably to add interest by not having the
piece broken up visually right at the midpoint line). I've never felt
the need to do this religiously, but it does seem to have some merit.


Chuck Vance

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On 9 Apr 2004 05:01:00 -0700, [email protected] (Conan the Librarian)
> wrote:
> snip...
>
> > it is much easier to do this
> >layout in metric; 1/8"'s and 1/16"'s, etc. don't divide as easily as
> >multiples of 10.
>
> lesse....
>
> 10 is divisible by 1, 2 and 5. that's it.
>
> 12 (feet) are divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6
> 16 (inches, depending on your rule) are divisible by 1, 2, 4 and 8
>
> to me the only advantage to metric is it works better on my cheapo
> calculator. it's certainly not inherently "better"

I don't think I said it was "better", but it's easier for me.
Obviously, YMMV. Anyhow, I'm talking about dovetails here, and I
don't recall the last time I cut any dt's where feet came into play.
Try this: Take an inch and subdivide it by millimeters. Take an inch
and subdivide it by 16"'s. Which is easier to be more precise with?


Chuck Vance

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> well, an inch divided by 16ths is, um, lesse (fumbles with adding up
> the fingers on 4 hands)... ah! it's 16!
>
> and an inch divided up by milimeters- well that's easy. everybody
> knows that that comes out to 25.4

That's nice, but I wasn't talking about converting an inch to
millimeters, I was talking about which is *easier* to get more precise
with when *laying* *out* *dovetails*. You may find it easier to
divide by 16ths, 32nds, 8ths, etc., but I find it easier to divide by
increments of 10.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you like it
better working with inches then do it. I was offering up a different
approach that works for me.


Chuck Vance

"Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> <rubs hands, sits down with popcorn>
>
> Hey boyz! The imperial vs metric thread is coming back!
>
> <G>

Yeah, I think that's where the previous poster wanted this to go,
but I'm not going there. :-) I rarely use metric, but I simply found
that it comes in handy when laying out dovetails. Nothing more,
nothing less.


Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) I'm married to a Canookie, so maybe that
explains why I'm part-metric.

Introduced? All the really old dovetails I have ever seen had narrow
pins. I think most people did it that way because that is the way they
always were.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:14:15 GMT, "James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove
this)citlink.net> wrote:

>And another thing! LOL It makes sense to me also that thinner pins were
>probably introduced as a way of making the joint more delicate and
>interesting visually.
>"James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove this)citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> To me its a hallmark of craftsmanship for the thinner pins. Since the
>> thinner pins have been around alot longer than any router or jig its
>obvious
>> earlier woodworkers didn't make them to "prove" they weren't cut with a
>> machine or jig. They did it as a way of showing abilities. Nowadays I
>guess
>> that would be some folks reason for thin pins but it surely wasn't the
>> reason for the trend in the beginning. Besides it just looks really cool
>to
>> my eyes.
>>
>> Jim
>>

Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
- Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"

To me its a hallmark of craftsmanship for the thinner pins. Since the
thinner pins have been around alot longer than any router or jig its obvious
earlier woodworkers didn't make them to "prove" they weren't cut with a
machine or jig. They did it as a way of showing abilities. Nowadays I guess
that would be some folks reason for thin pins but it surely wasn't the
reason for the trend in the beginning. Besides it just looks really cool to
my eyes.

Jim


"RWM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> > of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> > them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> > thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> > and tails, wouldn't t it?
> >
> > Ed Bailen
>
> I believe that the reason most woodworkers make thin pins is to show that
> they were not made with a variable spacing jig, like the Leigh jig. I
have
> heard that pitch many times.
>
> Bob
>
>

Actually it was even more then that. Developed and coming into common use
during the eighteenth century it marked the end of the heavy blocky look of
the Jacobean period. A look necessitated by the common use of nailed butt
and M & T joints. It allowed for the more refined delicate look of the
William and Mary period and the development of the various period furniture
styles from then on. .

--
Mike G.
[email protected]
Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove this)citlink.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And another thing! LOL It makes sense to me also that thinner pins were
> probably introduced as a way of making the joint more delicate and
> interesting visually.
> "James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove this)citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > To me its a hallmark of craftsmanship for the thinner pins. Since the
> > thinner pins have been around alot longer than any router or jig its
> obvious
> > earlier woodworkers didn't make them to "prove" they weren't cut with a
> > machine or jig. They did it as a way of showing abilities. Nowadays I
> guess
> > that would be some folks reason for thin pins but it surely wasn't the
> > reason for the trend in the beginning. Besides it just looks really cool
> to
> > my eyes.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > "RWM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a
mark
> > > > of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> > > > them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> > > > thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> > > > and tails, wouldn't t it?
> > > >
> > > > Ed Bailen
> > >
> > > I believe that the reason most woodworkers make thin pins is to show
> that
> > > they were not made with a variable spacing jig, like the Leigh jig. I
> > have
> > > heard that pitch many times.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On 9 Apr 2004 05:01:00 -0700, [email protected] (Conan the Librarian)
wrote:
snip...

> it is much easier to do this
>layout in metric; 1/8"'s and 1/16"'s, etc. don't divide as easily as
>multiples of 10.



lesse....

10 is divisible by 1, 2 and 5. that's it.

12 (feet) are divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6
16 (inches, depending on your rule) are divisible by 1, 2, 4 and 8

to me the only advantage to metric is it works better on my cheapo
calculator. it's certainly not inherently "better"

Ed Bailen wrote:

> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins?

To paraphrase Patrick Leach, "because you can".

> The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?

Yep. But thin pins are more interesting to look at and look less
like they could have been cut by some machine.


Chuck Vance

Really thin pins can't be done with a router (the neck of the router bit can
only be so narrow). It means that they are hand-made.

If you are cutting by hand, thin is no harder than thick.

If you can't tell otherwise that they were hand-made, I would say "yes" that
is a mark carftsmanship.

"Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship.

Really thin pins can't be done with a router (the neck of the router bit can
only be so narrow). It means that they are hand-made.

If you are cutting by hand, thin is no harder than thick.

If you can't tell otherwise that they were hand-made, I would say "yes" that
is a mark carftsmanship.

>I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins?

Aesthetics. Or to say "hey these are handmade"

>The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?

Dunno, but for me aesthetics would be more important than naking an
otherwise perfectly strong joint marginally stronger.

-Steve

In article <[email protected]>,
Ed Bailen <[email protected]> writes:
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?

I'm not so sure I buy any "this way is stronger than that way"
arguments when it comes to dovetail joints. Except for
extreme examples, I'd be surprised if dovetails laid out
one way would be more beneficial from a strength standpoint
than dovetails laid out some other way.

I think it really does come down to aesthetics. Here it
really is interesting, I think. Today some value
handcut dovetails (thin or not) over machine cut dovetails,
though I expect only if it were somehow clear they were, indeed,
handcut not machine cut. One way to demonstrate this is to
handcut dovetails in such a way that no readily available
machine could duplicate the layout.

But imagine yourself travelling back in time three or four
hundred years with a dovetailing machine. I bet your
machine cut dovetails would be all the rage. After all,
any monarch could get stuff with excellent handcut dovetails.
But how many could get stuff with your machine cut dovetails?
In other words, it's not the handmade craftsmanship that is so
valuable, per se; it's the relative rarity/novelty which
is valued. Nowadays, handcut dovetails have a corner on
the rare/novelty market, which make them more "aesthetically
pleasing" to some (most? all?).

And where do those funky machine cut joints fit into the
picture? I'm thinking of the "bears ears" templates
and the like which are available for the Leigh jig, here.
Those are certainly more novel/rare than typical dovetails.
Are they more or less aesthetically pleasing? Certainly
some get excited by them, though I'm sure there are some
on this very newsgroup who don't think they're all that
great.

--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthunder at math dot niu dot edu

Jeffrey Thunder wrote:

> I'm not so sure I buy any "this way is stronger than that way"
> arguments when it comes to dovetail joints. Except for
> extreme examples, I'd be surprised if dovetails laid out one
> way would be more beneficial from a strength standpoint than
> dovetails laid out some other way.

I suspect you're right. The small amount of experimentation I've
done seems to indicate that a row of small through tenons makes a
tough-to-beat (for strength) drawer joint. (example at bottom of
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/jigs.html)

> I think it really does come down to aesthetics. Here it really
> is interesting, I think. Today some value handcut dovetails
> (thin or not) over machine cut dovetails, though I expect only
> if it were somehow clear they were, indeed, handcut not
> machine cut. One way to demonstrate this is to handcut
> dovetails in such a way that no readily available machine
> could duplicate the layout.

Well yes; but "readily available" is undergoing rapid change. I
have a CNC router - which is a bit of a reach for hobby use by
most people; but I saw a 3-axis CNC router with a 48"x48" work
area (can handle larger workpieces, but spindle travel is only
48" for x- and y-axes and 6" for z-axis) for $2000 yesterday.
That price included a PC and monitor but not a spindle. Now two
grand isn't a cheap dovetail jig; but it can be used to cut any
kind of dovetails the high-end jigs discussed here can cut, as
well as more flavors of mortise and tenon than the high-end
tenoning jigs discussed here can cut. Suddenly the $2K figure
doesn't seem quite so high. As more and more people recognize
that, we'll see more and more CNC tools in wood shops - and the
price can be expected to drop...

> But imagine yourself travelling back in time three or four
> hundred years with a dovetailing machine. I bet your machine
> cut dovetails would be all the rage. After all, any monarch
> could get stuff with excellent handcut dovetails. But how many
> could get stuff with your machine cut dovetails? In other
> words, it's not the handmade craftsmanship that is so
> valuable, per se; it's the relative rarity/novelty which is
> valued. Nowadays, handcut dovetails have a corner on the
> rare/novelty market, which make them more "aesthetically
> pleasing" to some (most? all?).

Agreed. At one point the French royalty laid out aluminum
tableware - because at the time aluminum metal was more rare than
platinum or gold!

> And where do those funky machine cut joints fit into the
> picture? I'm thinking of the "bears ears" templates and the
> like which are available for the Leigh jig, here. Those are
> certainly more novel/rare than typical dovetails. Are they
> more or less aesthetically pleasing? Certainly some get
> excited by them, though I'm sure there are some on this very
> newsgroup who don't think they're all that great.

I think they're /interesting/; and built a dovetail jig onto my
3-axis machine (http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/cnc_joinery.html) so I
could copy 'em. When it occurred to me that I could make even
more interesting joints, I kind of left the bears' ears on the
table. I've written a part program to cut a through tenon joint
whose pins have an X-shaped cross-section and have been doodling
with letter shaped pins. How about a bench drawer with tenons
that spell out C H I S E L S?

<g> Just noticed your sig. Linear algebra is coming soon to a
workshop near you! (-:

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On 9 Apr 2004 16:48:59 -0700, [email protected] (Conan the Librarian)
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> On 9 Apr 2004 05:01:00 -0700, [email protected] (Conan the Librarian)
>> wrote:
>> snip...
>>
>> > it is much easier to do this
>> >layout in metric; 1/8"'s and 1/16"'s, etc. don't divide as easily as
>> >multiples of 10.
>>
>> lesse....
>>
>> 10 is divisible by 1, 2 and 5. that's it.
>>
>> 12 (feet) are divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6
>> 16 (inches, depending on your rule) are divisible by 1, 2, 4 and 8
>>
>> to me the only advantage to metric is it works better on my cheapo
>> calculator. it's certainly not inherently "better"
>
> I don't think I said it was "better", but it's easier for me.
>Obviously, YMMV. Anyhow, I'm talking about dovetails here, and I
>don't recall the last time I cut any dt's where feet came into play.
>Try this: Take an inch and subdivide it by millimeters. Take an inch
>and subdivide it by 16"'s. Which is easier to be more precise with?
>
>
> Chuck Vance



well, an inch divided by 16ths is, um, lesse (fumbles with adding up
the fingers on 4 hands)... ah! it's 16!

and an inch divided up by milimeters- well that's easy. everybody
knows that that comes out to 25.4

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:47:10 GMT, "James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove
this)citlink.net> wrote:

>Yes introduced. Are you saying you have never seen an 18th century or older
>piece with wider pins? I have seen both myself many times. And besides that
>by introduced I only meant, whenever it became a common practice. You know
>what I mean? I wasnt trying to actually "date" the technique just needed a
>word and "introduced" popped in my head. Forgive me.
>
>Jim
>
>
>"Rodney Myrvaagnes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Introduced? All the really old dovetails I have ever seen had narrow
>> pins. I think most people did it that way because that is the way they
>> always were.
>>
Yes, I really am saying that. I am ready to be educated. I have
examined a lot of old pieces in the Met, Winterthur, and the MFA
Boston, and I don't remember any wide pins.

But I am getting old and dotty, and have never been infallible.



Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

"If Brecht had directed 'Waiting for Godot,' he would have hung a large sign at the back of the stage reading 'He's not going to come, you know. ' " -- Terry Eagleton

Concerning dovetails, after cutting a couple of hundred by hand seems to me
it is as quick to do them by hand as to do them with a machine considering
the set up time etc . I suppose only when a production dovetail operation is
ongoing does the machine really have an advantage .

In addition what is the advantage of a machine when doing non through
dovetails the rounded corners still have to be cleaned up by hand and I
would imagine secret dovetails would be well neigh impossible with a
jig.....mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"Jeffrey Thunder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ed Bailen <[email protected]> writes:
> > I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> > of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> > them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> > thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> > and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> I'm not so sure I buy any "this way is stronger than that way"
> arguments when it comes to dovetail joints. Except for
> extreme examples, I'd be surprised if dovetails laid out
> one way would be more beneficial from a strength standpoint
> than dovetails laid out some other way.
>
> I think it really does come down to aesthetics. Here it
> really is interesting, I think. Today some value
> handcut dovetails (thin or not) over machine cut dovetails,
> though I expect only if it were somehow clear they were, indeed,
> handcut not machine cut. One way to demonstrate this is to
> handcut dovetails in such a way that no readily available
> machine could duplicate the layout.
>
> But imagine yourself travelling back in time three or four
> hundred years with a dovetailing machine. I bet your
> machine cut dovetails would be all the rage. After all,
> any monarch could get stuff with excellent handcut dovetails.
> But how many could get stuff with your machine cut dovetails?
> In other words, it's not the handmade craftsmanship that is so
> valuable, per se; it's the relative rarity/novelty which
> is valued. Nowadays, handcut dovetails have a corner on
> the rare/novelty market, which make them more "aesthetically
> pleasing" to some (most? all?).
>
> And where do those funky machine cut joints fit into the
> picture? I'm thinking of the "bears ears" templates
> and the like which are available for the Leigh jig, here.
> Those are certainly more novel/rare than typical dovetails.
> Are they more or less aesthetically pleasing? Certainly
> some get excited by them, though I'm sure there are some
> on this very newsgroup who don't think they're all that
> great.
>
> --
> Jeff Thunder
> Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
> Northern Illinois Univ.
> jthunder at math dot niu dot edu
>

And another thing! LOL It makes sense to me also that thinner pins were
probably introduced as a way of making the joint more delicate and
interesting visually.
"James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove this)citlink.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To me its a hallmark of craftsmanship for the thinner pins. Since the
> thinner pins have been around alot longer than any router or jig its
obvious
> earlier woodworkers didn't make them to "prove" they weren't cut with a
> machine or jig. They did it as a way of showing abilities. Nowadays I
guess
> that would be some folks reason for thin pins but it surely wasn't the
> reason for the trend in the beginning. Besides it just looks really cool
to
> my eyes.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "RWM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> > > of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> > > them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> > > thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> > > and tails, wouldn't t it?
> > >
> > > Ed Bailen
> >
> > I believe that the reason most woodworkers make thin pins is to show
that
> > they were not made with a variable spacing jig, like the Leigh jig. I
> have
> > heard that pitch many times.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>

"Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> Ed Bailen

I believe that the reason most woodworkers make thin pins is to show that
they were not made with a variable spacing jig, like the Leigh jig. I have
heard that pitch many times.

Bob

There comes a point where stronger becomes a meaningless term. That point is
where the joint will do the job without failure under normal conditions/use.

That is to say that if you want to make large evenly spaced dovetails more
power to you but it doesn't mean that it will out live a similar item made
with small thin dovetails.

Another example would be X brand glue advertising that the joint it makes
will be stronger then the wood and Y brand claiming it is stronger then
brand X. If, in fact, brand X is stronger then the wood. Ho hum, so what if
brand Y is even stronger.

--
Mike G.
[email protected]
Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> Ed Bailen

Yes introduced. Are you saying you have never seen an 18th century or older
piece with wider pins? I have seen both myself many times. And besides that
by introduced I only meant, whenever it became a common practice. You know
what I mean? I wasnt trying to actually "date" the technique just needed a
word and "introduced" popped in my head. Forgive me.

Jim


"Rodney Myrvaagnes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Introduced? All the really old dovetails I have ever seen had narrow
> pins. I think most people did it that way because that is the way they
> always were.
>
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:14:15 GMT, "James D. Kountz" <jkountz@(remove
> - Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"

Thin pins = more pins = more prime glue surface
"Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always heard that dovwtail joints with very thin pins are a mark
> of craftsmanship. I can understand that in that it's hard to make
> them well. My question is: why would you want to make a joint with
> thin pins? The joint would be much stronger with evenly spaced pins
> and tails, wouldn't t it?
>
> Ed Bailen

"Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <rubs hands, sits down with popcorn>
>
> Hey boyz! The imperial vs metric thread is coming back!
>

I vote for metric...

Agkistrodon