Not necessarily ... But I think I've figured out where _we_ have BOTH been confused about the other's contentions.
Kindly hear me out before snapping back ... thanks.
Looking back over the thread this afternoon trying to figure out where it went out of whack, and I believe the below is the pivotal point at which we started down a diverging semantics path ... and it is entirely my fault:
While I am in _complete_ agreement with the latter half of the above, unfortunately my response quoted the entire, while my intent was to take some exception to ONLY the following:
I can see where injudiciously, in haste to reply, my including the latter half caused the mistaken notion that I somehow assumed jointing was a necessary requirement for SxSxE lumber, which is far from the truth, and something I thought I had made quite plain in a definition of surfaced lumber in a prior post.
I apologize for the sloppiness.
However, I continue to disagree with the blanket assertion that the following statement, which started the whole shooting match, is wrong:
I'm certainly confused by your repeated insistence that it's not necessary to specify jointing when ordering S2S lumber. This does not make *any* sense, because: a) the standard for S2S does not specify jointing, therefore S2S lumber can be assumed to not have been jointed; b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face that is perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical purposes nonexistent; c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa; d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd better order it that way or he won't get it that way.
I never stated, or thought, that you assumed that jointing was a necessary requirement for the production of SxSxE lumber.
Indeed we do disagree on that point. I will continue to maintain that for the OP, or anyone else who does not own a jointer, to stop ordering jointed lumber and instead deliberately purchase lumber that still needs to processed with a tool he does not own, is not a reasonable thing to do. Certainly there are other ways of preparing straight flat stock without using a jointer (jointer planes and planer sleds being the most obvious), but about the only way that's more convenient than using your own jointer is paying someone else to joint it for you -- which is essentially what the OP was doing by ordering his lumber jointed.
A board "jointed" yesterday may not be considered, for all practical purposes, "jointed" today ... a decidedly "non-rare", and very common, circumstance.
Guess the hyperbole went over your head, Tom. Of course jointed lumber isn't perfectly straight and flat either, but it's considerably closer to perfect than lumber that hasn't been jointed.
Apparently you have nothing better to do than to pick at my typos.
Which is exactly equivalent to "it should be jointed if it hasn't been jointed."
If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat, then either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
Isn't it the truth. Not to mention, if he's a tablesaw and sled type or one of the other "alternative" jointing devices. he's going to have to make do with a bunch of bowed stock from ripping and releasing tension on the saw, or dedicate a machine to the single operation to get his straight edges back when prepping stock.
Well, let's just elevate the project a little bit and say I'm out to make a cherry library.
I'm going to order up a thousand board feet of #1 Common cherry, planed flat on one face and skip planed to 3/16" less than the rough nominal thickness on the other face. One edge will be SLR1E.
It will be a mixed load of 4/4, 5/4 and 6/4.
I use #1 Common because the price point is advantageous and the timber is actually more interesting than plain vanilla FAS or Select. Also, I know that I will have a sufficient number of FAS faces in the pile for those items that require them, mostly molding, which can be pissy to run in stock with varying hardness and inclusions.
When I break down the pile I'm going to select out the straightest and most nearly quartersawn stock for my stiles and rails. These benefit from being made out of sticks that just naturally wants to be straight and flat.
I'm then going to select out the most interestingly figured wood for my door and drawer panels, and the wainscoting panels, if they are in the job.
I plane my stile and rail stock to final thickness and then cut them to rough lengths. At this point I check the SLR1E edge with a straightedge and usually find that it is good enough to sit against the tablesaw fence. I then rip the stiles and rails to an oversized width and check the freshly ripped edges for straightness.
It is usually the case that one of the edges is good enough to be run through the shaper to make the cope and stick. The pieces have not been face jointed because a stile or rail is only about 2-1/4" to 3" wide and with careful stock selection I will have faces whose cup will not exceed that which will be taken out in the sanding process.
I take the panel stock and plane it to final thickness and then rough cut to length. At this point I rip the stock to no greater than four inches wide and joint both edges.
I test butt the pieces together on a large work table to arrange the panels into the most pleasing figure and color. I then pair the panels up, so that a pair of doors will have a balanced look when sitting next to each other. The most figured panels go in the center doors and I work my way out from there.
Once I have worked my way through the stiles and rails, the stock for the worked molding, and the panels, I'll be left with a need for some fairly wide sticks for the cornice and base. These can be a little twisty and very slightly cupped because I have the opportunity to boss them around with clamps, glue, and fasteners that will be hidden when the project is finished.
The greatest challenge is obviously the panels. I don't flip my faces in gluing up the panels because I don't want to deal with the washboarding that this encourages. The panel will either be flat or will have a gentle cup across its width, which I deal with by running the panel, or half the panel, if it is too wide, through the planer, taking very light passes and essentially face jointing the panel.
If there is more than moderate twist, I shim the panel and lightly pass it through the planer.
This is the only instance of what might properly be called face jointing in the entire project and it is only done after the panels have been glued up - the individual sticks have not been face jointed.
The panels are cut to final length and width and the doors are glued up. The fact that the stiles are oversized in width means that I can trim off the clamp bruises when the glue up is dry.
Your work already shows that you are way beyond apprenticing to anyone, Swing.
That line about the rest being used to make furniture sounds like more of a joke than it actually is.
That library would have been bid at FAS prices for maybe 800 bf net.
I pay the same for a thousand bf of #1 Common, (and get free delivery because I am at a thousand feet, along with the price break that goes along with) select out the stuff for the job and get to play with the rest.
The overage is stuff that is too "interesting" to be included in the process of building casework in an efficient way.
It is damned nice stuff, however, albeit needing more TLC for it to shine.
These sticks and pieces really need full balls to the wall stock prep and a jointer is priceless in rendering them into useful stock.
I'd recommend that anyone who is used to buying only FAS and Select try dropping down a grade. There is a sweet spot in the price/yield graph that can really work for you.
Douglas: There is an important point to be made here.
In fact, there are several important wooddorking points to be made.
A cabinet door represents perhaps the greatest challenge that most dorkers will encounter, at least in the doing of casework - in the regard of stock selection.
To my way of thinking it is hands above the difficulty of a dovetailed drawer because that can actually be made out of twisted stock and still work because the dovetails can boss around the twist.
A door attempts to be a plane. In a theoretical sense it is treated as a plane. In point of fact, none of them are.
I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the theoretical reference of same.
A door is an attempt at a plane that has one edge fixed via hinges to the opening that it hopes to be planar to.
The hope of the joiner is that the allegedly planar door will interface with the allegedly planar opening in a pleasing manner that will allow the closing and catching hardware to work properly, the hinges to run smoothly, and have the face of the door parallel throughout to the face of the opening that it is intended to fit into.
He would also insist that the reveal be even and of the appropriate width on all four edges.
That is an awful lot to ask out of an organic material that changes its critical dimensions in response to heat, humidity, inherent internal stresses, variations in coating chemistry and application, heat gain and loss related to its position in the environment, the mechanical value of the hinging, the mechanical value of the adhesive, the geometry of the joinery, the mechanics of the installation process, etc., etc, etc.
It is, in fact, an impossibility.
There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.
Krenov can't do it. Frid can't do it. Marks can't do it. Norm - well, Norm knows exactly what I'm talking about.
What is a poor dorker to do?
The dorker must apply wisdom.
Wisdom is different from knowledge in that it understands reality rather than attempting to define or defy it. There are certain areas of post-Newtonian physics that embrace this but I'm not going to bring quarks into a discussion of quirks. I wouldn't want to bring a chisel to a laser fight.
The dorker of course will seek to make his opening as planar as possible and he will endeavor to make his door as planar as possible.
In order for a frame and panel door to be as nearly planar to the theoretical reference as possible, there are a number of variables that must be addressed.
The stock must be as free from the trinity of ugly as possible - that is, it must not be crooked, it must not be cupped and it must not be bowed.
YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED, CUPPED OR BOWED.
The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.
Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails - but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.
These modifications to the three uglies are temporary and are not to be trusted.
A stick that suffers from any of the three uglies does so internally and a modification of the exterior does not usually go to the heart of the matter, if I may be a trifle arch.
Essentially and historically the traditional temporary modification of the triune uglies has been done to prepare the stock for joinery.
Do you think that a rectilinear frame structure can achieve planarity if the elements that comprise it are full of inherent internal stresses?
Me neither.
YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.
Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that it probably borders on bullshit - but there is an interesting kernel of truth to it.
You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but, if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the inevitable.
The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as possible.
A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow and still be acceptable.
If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.
THE REVELATION OF THE FOURTH UGLIE.
Twist is the fourth and most significant uglie. In a sense it is the only uglie that is not able to be compensated for.
Look at your stock first for twist. Jointing will only make the twist go away temporarily.
If you introduce it into your frame, it will add stress that is unwanted and extremely detrimental.
You must use winder sticks on your stiles and rails once they have been cut to rough width and length. Any that are markedly out need to be used for something else.
ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.
Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.
Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook and lack of cup - in that order.
I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face and at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I can judge crook.
Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician. He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is truly twisted - he must be rejected.
You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.
I've been trying to tell you that your stock isn't as flat as you think it is...
[snip]
And careful stock selection by itself doesn't go as far as careful stock selection followed by careful stock preparation.
Agree on all counts. :-)
Disagree -- that's a starting point, but it's not the solution. The solution consists of starting there, and continuing by proper truing of the stock because it is not in fact perfect.
True -- but a sixty-fourth, or zero, is better still, and not difficult to achieve.
[snip description of the evils of twist, with which I entirely agree]
Disagree again, but this time with your choice of words. Replace "lack of" (which implies zero) with "minimal" and I won't argue, but (again) if you think that your un-prepped stock truly *lacks* bow, crook, or cup, you need to stop off at the optometrist's office first on your way to the lumberyard.
If you haven't jointed it, you DON'T have one flat face. It may be close to flat, it may even be close *enough* to flat to satisfy you, or your customer, or whomever... but it isn't flat. And yes, I know that even a jointed board isn't perfectly flat.
I submit that if you get enough springback that you can actually see it... you should've left that board at the lumberyard.
Interesting way of putting it. I'm afraid I'm not as tolerant of crooked or bowed politicians -- or lumber -- as you seem to be, but it's an apt simile just the same, particularly with respect to the twisted ones.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.