For my bed project, I am one horizontal board short of what I need to
complete the headboard. For this headboard I would like to add one more
long horizontal board instead of butting 2 boards together and creating
a visible seam.
The boards are 60" x 4.5" x 1.25". I have 6, I need 7.
I have lots of shorter 4.5" x 1.25" boards, so I was thinking of resawing
one long board down the middle to get 2 long boards, then resawing 4
shorter boards and gluing (screwing?) them to the backs of the long boards
to get back to the 1.25" thickness. I would then put the butt seams on the
back of the headboard where they wouldn't be seen.
Here's the issue: I don't think my bandsaw (or maybe me) is capable of
doing a good enough job on the resawing, so I called around and found a
local lumber yard that will do it for me.
He said that he has a table saw that has the capability of resawing
the 4.5" boards, adding "It's a roughcut blade and you'll loose about
3/16" of material." When I mentioned that the total linear feet for
the 5 boards (1 long, 4 short) would be about 16', he said he'd
charge me $10 and do it while I wait. The plan would be to have
him resaw the long boards down the center and then resaw the short
boards "off center" so that I get the 3/16" back.
Am I missing anything with this plan? Will a "rough cut" table saw
blade leave a good enough resaw cut for me to glue (screw?) the boards
back together? Once the headboard panel is built, the sides and ends
of the "new" long boards will be hidden, only the faces will be seen,
which is the whole point of this exercise. (I need one more long face.)
(BTW...I called 4 millwork places and this guy was the only one willing
to do it. The other 3 said that they don't mill wood that they didn't
As always, thanks for any advice.
If you are planning to edge glue all the boards in the photo to create a
panel, I would personally go to the trouble of buying another board to
match the others ... you will thereby remove any troubling problem of
possible seasonal movement.
That said, if you use the "laminated" stock boards on top and bottom,
and not the middle, you may still have a good chance of success with the
However, if they are NOT going to be edge glued, the above plan should
certainly work for the way you describe what you want to do.
FWIW, I have done similar face to face "laminations" on much wider stock
to make up the desired thickness of end panels, and by matching the
grain and cut (flat, rift, etc.) have had good results doing so.
You do have a table saw?
If so, might want to resaw it yourself partway through, and finish the
cut with a handsaw, then plane/sand any uneven residual material from
While these are short pieces, long boards are not a problem with a
featherboard setup like the one you see:
Despite the above, I may well have misunderstood your goal. If so, sorry.
I saw one video where the resawed by cutting partially through with the
TS then finishing the cut on the BS. It didn't make sense at the time, I
thought they should do the whole thing on the BS. Seeing how many
bandsaws tend to cut, it makes sense now.
My browser doesn't know what to make of that link. Do you basically have
the feather boards set up as tall as possible near the front edge of the
blade, maybe with another on top pushing down?
Just a guess.
It's been a while since I've resawn on the table saw, but IIRC the most
important things were keeping the feather board ahead of the blade (to
avoid pinching the blade) and keeping pressure down on the table to keep
the board from lifting.
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:01:14 PM UTC-4, Swingman wrote:
No can do. This is the 20 YO reclaimed quarter sawn douglas fir that I
bought on Craigslist a while back. I doubt I could come close to matching
the grain and color.
I don't want to use one of the laminated boards on the top because the
top edge of the panel will be exposed, therefore the seam from the
lamination would be visible.
Could you explain why edge gluing enters into this? I'm sure it has
something to do with wood movement, but why would edge gluing the
boards be a problem just based on the fact that 2 of the "boards" are
laminations? And why does the location (top and bottom vs. both on
the bottom) matter?
Yes, someone you know sent me an dado set to use on it a while back. :-)
Max height of the blade is 3.25". That's another 1.25" X 16' that I would
have to cut by hand. I can't afford to ruin any long boards because, as I
mentioned earlier, they are the last ones in the entire universe. ;-)
My computer wants to know what I want to do with:
13, 11_44_46 AM.webp from ih3.googleusercontent.com
I think you've got it! I just wish I could see your featherboard set up.
Basically it involves the reason why you always attempt to use a
dimensionally stable "substrate" when laminating.
In your case, and even though the two pieces of the "lamination" being
joined are from the same wood species, they are still subject to the
possibility of having differing inherent dimensional instability
properties from being cut from different parts of the same log, or a
different log, or a different cut.
IOW ... any differential movement in one piece making up the lamination
will likely effect/telegraph to the other.
If the this happens to one of the end boards in a glued up panel, the
effect is liable to be less noticeable/or disastrous than it would be in
a middle board.
In short, both the visible, and problematic, effects of expansion or
contraction of a piece of wood is most often observed at its edges ...
.... if one edge is free to move, and given room to do so, the overall
problematic effect of that movement (cracked joint, warping, ect) is
> I think you've got it! I just wish I could see your
> featherboard set up.
Just use common sense ... when resawing on the table saw I simply set
the featherboard in a location, and only with a light enough pressure,
that it won't close up the previous cut on the blade.
I may have missed earlier posts on this, but when I used to resaw
on the tablesaw (or resawr as Norm would have it), I'd leave the
cut short from both edges and finish with a handsaw to avoid the kerf
closing on the cut.
Yep, that is the preferred, and safest method. For the OP, since the
last photo link didn't work, let's try this:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:12:57 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I really doubt it. Could you have him resaw a little thick and then run
the boards through your planer or thickness sander? Or his, if you don't
But my suggestion would be to get one of the Highland Hardware Wood-
and follow their instruction sheet. Practice on some of those extra
short boards. I can tell you that I suddenly became much better at
resawing and I doubt it was me :-).
But I still think you'd want at least one pass with planer or thickness
sander, but you might get away without one.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:27:29 PM UTC-4, Larry Blanchard wrote:
I don't see why you are saying that. Everything else I've wanted to use
the bandsaw for on this project had worked out fine. Other than not being
able to resaw a 4.5" wide board, why do think a 10" band saw is a problem
for my bed build?
When I say the max is 3.75", I am talking about the amount of blade
that can be exposed for the table upwards with the guides raised to the
highest point. Other than the 4.5" resaw desire, nothing I've needed cut
on band saw has required the full 3.75".
It's this model, mounted on a leg base.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:03:34 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Maybe because I've got a 14" bandsaw that will resaw 12" and I frequently
mutter that it's too small :-).
It's not just the resaw. For example, try cutting out a 24" diameter
table top or tray. Or try rough cutting a bowl blank out of a large log
(if you do any turning). I suspect cutting 8/4 oak/maple/cherry would be
pretty difficult with the HP of a 10" bandsaw.
BTW, most (but not all) woodworkers will tell you that 3 wheels and
direct drive are bad things. I won't get into the details, a web search
will tell you more than you ever wanted to know :-).
But in the end, it's what works for you. If you're happy with the saw,
keep it till it dies - *then* get a bigger one.
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:32:53 PM UTC-4, Trenbidia wrote:
Not what I have a need to do. You'll recall that Larry said that I was
"taking on a big project for that level of equipment."
Again, the uses for which I needed the band saw for this "big project"
have not required anything bigger. The only thing that I am not able to
do for this project is resaw the one board that I was considering turning
(BTW I have decide to forego that task.)
It's a two wheel unit, but yes it is direct drive.
It's been alive for about 30 years, so I'm not sure it will ever die.
Besides, "a bigger one" and "my shop" wouldn't play well together. ;-)
No one can answer whether "he" can resaw good enough for you to reglue.
If he says you are going to get a rough cut, loosing 3/16 is a lot, no.
But you might consider using the good, outer sides, of the boards to
glue together and sand smooth the outer rough cut pieces.
It is not an easy thing to do and the type of wood can make it harder to
do. I have it countless times with Ipe and got a slick smooth surface.
Oak on the other hands not so good.
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:05:24 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
Based on my experience with this quarter-sawn douglas fir, once the interior
is exposed, it won't match the other boards. I think that it has to do with
being "aged" for almost 20 years since it was reclaimed and then S4S'd. We
love the slightly red color and want to retain that.
Like I said, douglas fir. When I rip it with a 40 tooth blade, it comes out pretty smooth, smooth enough that I wouldn't hesitate to laminate it if
that's how the "rough cut" resaw ended up.
But you are not ripping it, some one else is. And he said you will lose
3/16". Since most any 10" TS has the capacity to resaw up to 6" his may
not be a large industrial, larger than 10". Most 10" blades will remove
1/8 or less. I'm thinking that you are going to end to with tooth marks
1/32" deep on each side of your cut.
Just something to think about/clarify with the person that is going to do
this for you.
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 9:00:45 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
Makes sense. If I go down this path, I'll ask him to resaw a short scrap
first so I can see how it turns out.
I was laying out the boards last night and I'm torn between making the
headboard "uniform" in it's look all the way down to the rails - even the
part that will be hidden by the mattress - and just using the shorter boards
which will result a vertical seam. Again, the seam would be hidden by the
I may forgo the resaw idea and just go with *3* seams, spaced at 1/3's and
call it a "design feature".
That would certainly be the safer route for a part of the bed that will
rarely be seen.
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.