Antique Mortise & Tenon Joint Question

Page 2 of 2  


You are correct. "Refinishing" is far beyond "restoration," though the contrary Swingman will start an argument with the image in his mirror.
Restoration is normally a minimally invasive process, and the degree of restoration of a museum piece to be admired behind a rope is less than one which will carry a load.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"George" wrote in message

Naahhh .. only with a holier-than-thou smartass like yourself, George, who, once again with the above, exhibits a total inability to comprehend or correctly follow the context of a thread.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

Of course it does. Then once you've lost it, you've lost it. A second or third restoration shouldn't change this any more than the first did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm, Isn't a three-hundred-year-old chair that was last refinished two hundred years ago, and is still in good shape, worth more than a three-hundred-year-old chair that was last refinished last week and is also in good shape?
ISTM that each time it is refinished the 'value timer' is reset.
OTOH if that three-hundred-year-old chair was never refinished and is now totally BTF with none of the original finish left, does refinishing it hurt the value at all?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Antique value is in the eye of the beholder. Utility depends on whether you can park your butt on the chair without it breaking.
It's worth whatever the fool who wants it as something beside a chair ( or table or dresser...) is willing to pay for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:03:30 -0500, Bill Waller wrote:

As a matter of preserving the value use hide.
Otherwise I'd try G2 epoxy--it should stick to just about anything, is gap filling, and has enough flexibility that it shouldn't cause further loosening of the joint due to repeated expansion cycles. Note though that if you use epoxy you are _not_ going to get that piece apart again without breaking something, so be _very_ sure you want to use it.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Epoxy with a microballoon filler is regarded as acceptably reversible in museum conservation circles. It's obviously not as easily reversed as hide, but as far as a strong gap filler goes, it's as good as you're going to get.
This situation should almost certainly use hide. If there are gaps, then shim the tenons and still use hide.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> Epoxy with a microballoon filler is regarded as acceptably reversible > in museum conservation circles.
Just curious, "how they do dat"?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic28-01-003_indx.html
Some conservators reckon that the filled epoxy is suficiently non-adhesive on its own, others apply a barrier coat of Acryloid B-72 first.
I'm sorry about the rest of the day you've now lost to reading back-issues of JAIC 8-) I wish they had up to date ones on that site too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hmm--reading that they say that they're going for shrinkage of the wood resulting in failure of the filler, not the wood. For what they do that may be desirable, but Hoadley suggests, based on his own tests, that for maximum longevity what one really should be going for is a filler with enough elasticity to accomodate shrinkage of the wood without either failing. Hoadley used RTV in his tests--that stuff in my exeperience isn't all that strong and I do wonder if using the same test as they used it could also be separated without damaging the wood (beyond leaving it coated with cured silicone, which in itself is a problem).
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Remember that they're museum conservators, not furniture restorers. They're trying to make an exhibit fit for visual display, not make a chair fit to sit on again. They care about reversibility as #1 and looks as #2, but mechanical strength is far behind.
OTOH, I use phenolic microballoons in West System epoxy a lot as my standard filler for "Nakashima like" work. Maybe not chairs, but I've got tabletops that are held together by nothing else and I haven't had any problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> Some conservators reckon that the filled epoxy is suficiently > non-adhesive on its own, others apply a barrier coat of Acryloid B-72 > first.
Interesting.
I usually wet out the surfaces with epoxy then coat with epoxy putty to obtain max strength.
Guess you don't want me getting close to antique furniture<G>.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Exactly! The assumption is that filling the epoxy with microballoons is enouigh to reduce adhesion, compared to applying pure resin. Personally I don't trust this and I use the B-72 as a barrier. Sometimes shellac instead, depending on what I'm working on.
Mind you, I don't follw that bizarre US conservation practice of regarding micro wax as an adhesive.
A while ago I restored a 16th century oak cabinet, the sort with split turnings and panels of appliqued beading all around the drawer edges. It was the usual repair, sections of beading had been lost over the years. My task was to mould new beading to match, colour it to match and then attach it. As authenticity was fairly significant I'd ended up with fixing it, known for being a router- and stain-hating hippie who'd do it with wooden moulders and ammonia. I then attached the new mouldings with hide glue.
US practice for the same common repair on a piece like this (Omigod it's like _older_than_starbucks_! It's older than the Declaration of Independence!!! WTF!!! L33T!!!) seems to be using microcrystalline wax (Renaissance) as an adhesive. Now I know conservators use this for _everything_ including holding their dentures in place, but I really can't see this as an appropriate _repair_ to a piece when hide glue is such an ideal alternative.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I see a lot of people posting about how Gorilla Glue will "expand to fill gaps".
It sure does, but the expanded glue has almost no strength. It isn't a gap filling glue.
Sorry Bill, you were the one who posted the comment when I felt a bit testy.
Old Guy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Use hide and veneer to reface inside of mortise. Then assemble using hide.
Bill Waller wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.