A friend asked me if I could repair this desk. One of the interior side
panels (where your legs go) had split along a glue joint. I'm pretty sure
it's maple. It weighs in at about a half a ton. ;-)
https://i.imgur.com/vCG8xG7.jpg
There are 2 panels on the back, one on each side, that cover the openings
for the lower 2 drawers. This image shows the back with one panel removed.
You'll notice screw holes down each side, very close to the edge of the
side boards of the desk. If you look closely, you'll see a nail hole in
the center of the top and the bottom, right next to a screw hole.
https://i.imgur.com/0bXFzQJ.jpg
Here is an image of the other side, with the panel still installed.
Notice the screws with the finish washers. Both panels had the same
screws and finish washers, in the same pattern, and both panels had a
small nail in the center at the top and bottom of the panel.
https://i.imgur.com/BP2jOE7.jpg
OK, so here is what I'm curious about: Those screws are so close to the
edge of the side boards of the desk that they had to be screwed in at
angle in order to catch the board. Both sides were done the same way.
This image was taken through the front of the desk with back panel
installed. Notice the hole that I circled. You can see light through
the hole in the panel. That hole will eventually be filled with an
angled screw.
https://i.imgur.com/mEow8vk.png
I see 3 possible reasons for the panels to be sized so that the screws
had to be angled:
1 - They were cut too small to begin with and the builder decided not to
cut bigger ones.
2 - The panels were cut to the size that the builder wanted, attached
only with the 2 nails and sometime later someone else decided to add
screws and finish washers. They are certainly not "modern" screws, so
if the attachment method was modified, it was done quite some time ago.
Just FYI...the nails were not loose. After removing the screws, I had
to pound the panel off from the inside.
3 - The screws were purposely put in at angle during the initial build
so that they didn't split the side boards. (Seems to me that slightly
larger panels and pre-drilling would have served the same purpose.)
Any other thoughts or reasons that you can think of?
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:38:33 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 2/23/2019 6:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > Any other thoughts or reasons that you can think of?
>
> If you're just asking about "why" the builder did what did, we're into
> pure speculation.
>
> One _might_ conjecture from the way they're kinda' just tacked on top of
> the upper back they actually aren't original but were added later...they
> don't seem to really fit any other particular visible style/technique.
>
> If they were original, my second conjecture would be they were a
> "woops!" add-on, didn't really plan out what had in mind for the backs
> and so same story as above, just different person.
>
> Why they were cut that narrow was probably (again, purely conjecture)
> the idea of keeping the edges from showing around the corners since it
> wasn't planned ahead to rabbet the back to inset them which would have
> been the better way if using a solid ply back panel.
>
> Having done so, at least the "whoever" did have the sense to angle into
> the material instead of blowing-out the sides with "straight in". One
> (small) atta-boy! for that minor feat. :)
>
> If the question were to go on to "a better way", somebody else already
> asked about how much clearance there is behind the drawers for adding (I
> believe they suggested quarter-round) a stop so could fasten to it directly.
>
> My inclination as a primitive-like piece, leave it as nearly as
> originally you found it as possible and unless the screws are actually
> splitting out the inside of the side panels, they serve the function and
> don't really hurt anything and are unlikely to create more trouble going
> forward.
>
> $0.02, imo, ymmz, etc., etc., etc., ... a "hands on" inspection to peek
> and poke and examine minutely might draw other conclusions, but that's
> what I think from these pictures.
>
> (BTW, These aren't the ones I thought I recalled from before...these are
> sufficient to see the general idea, indeed.)
Here is an picture of the inside of the carcass. There is no evidence of
there ever being a nailer strip for the rear panels. There is indeed a lot
of room behind the drawer where a nailer strip could have existed (2"+) but,
again, no remnants or evidence of anything that fell off.
The reason for the "narrow" panels and angled screws remains a mystery.
https://i.imgur.com/vMt0oxW.jpg
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:38:33 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 2/23/2019 6:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > Any other thoughts or reasons that you can think of?
>
> If you're just asking about "why" the builder did what did, we're into
> pure speculation.
>
> One _might_ conjecture from the way they're kinda' just tacked on top of
> the upper back they actually aren't original but were added later...they
> don't seem to really fit any other particular visible style/technique.
>
> If they were original, my second conjecture would be they were a
> "woops!" add-on, didn't really plan out what had in mind for the backs
> and so same story as above, just different person.
>
> Why they were cut that narrow was probably (again, purely conjecture)
> the idea of keeping the edges from showing around the corners since it
> wasn't planned ahead to rabbet the back to inset them which would have
> been the better way if using a solid ply back panel.
>
> Having done so, at least the "whoever" did have the sense to angle into
> the material instead of blowing-out the sides with "straight in". One
> (small) atta-boy! for that minor feat. :)
>
> If the question were to go on to "a better way", somebody else already
> asked about how much clearance there is behind the drawers for adding (I
> believe they suggested quarter-round) a stop so could fasten to it directly.
>
> My inclination as a primitive-like piece, leave it as nearly as
> originally you found it as possible and unless the screws are actually
> splitting out the inside of the side panels, they serve the function and
> don't really hurt anything and are unlikely to create more trouble going
> forward.
>
> $0.02, imo, ymmz, etc., etc., etc., ... a "hands on" inspection to peek
> and poke and examine minutely might draw other conclusions, but that's
> what I think from these pictures.
>
> (BTW, These aren't the ones I thought I recalled from before...these are
> sufficient to see the general idea, indeed.)
>
> --
Same and only pictures I posted related to the back panels.
I can't do any further inspection re: prior existence of nailer strips or
anything else as I am out town for the weekend. I'll take look on Tuesday.
SWMBO and I are in Philadelphia. Going to the Flower Show at the convention
center tomorrow. Supposedly the largest indoor flower show in the US. We
just got back from seeing a play at the Walnut Street Theater, the oldest
theater in the country. Half price day-of-show tickets, walking distance
from where we're staying. I could throw a rock and hit the liberty bell.
Well, if it wasn't locked up inside a building, that is. ;-)
On 2/23/2019 6:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> Any other thoughts or reasons that you can think of?
If you're just asking about "why" the builder did what did, we're into
pure speculation.
One _might_ conjecture from the way they're kinda' just tacked on top of
the upper back they actually aren't original but were added later...they
don't seem to really fit any other particular visible style/technique.
If they were original, my second conjecture would be they were a
"woops!" add-on, didn't really plan out what had in mind for the backs
and so same story as above, just different person.
Why they were cut that narrow was probably (again, purely conjecture)
the idea of keeping the edges from showing around the corners since it
wasn't planned ahead to rabbet the back to inset them which would have
been the better way if using a solid ply back panel.
Having done so, at least the "whoever" did have the sense to angle into
the material instead of blowing-out the sides with "straight in". One
(small) atta-boy! for that minor feat. :)
If the question were to go on to "a better way", somebody else already
asked about how much clearance there is behind the drawers for adding (I
believe they suggested quarter-round) a stop so could fasten to it directly.
My inclination as a primitive-like piece, leave it as nearly as
originally you found it as possible and unless the screws are actually
splitting out the inside of the side panels, they serve the function and
don't really hurt anything and are unlikely to create more trouble going
forward.
$0.02, imo, ymmz, etc., etc., etc., ... a "hands on" inspection to peek
and poke and examine minutely might draw other conclusions, but that's
what I think from these pictures.
(BTW, These aren't the ones I thought I recalled from before...these are
sufficient to see the general idea, indeed.)
--