J. Leko is the principal of J. Leko Furniture Maker, LLC., where he designs and builds specially commissioned custom furniture and woodwork. J. studied woodworking with some of the world’s best craftsmen at the Marc Adams School of Woodworking where he is completing the Michael Fortune Fellowship. He has taught furniture making classes at the Jane M. Hughes Arts and Crafts Center on Redstone Arsenal, and his articles have been published in WoodTalk On-Line, and Fine Woodworking magazine.
With the marquetry panels shipped out, it came to my attention that one did not contain its care tag. This is typically a single page write-up that I include with all of my pieces explaining when and where it was made, materials used, and care and repair instructions. Since these items stand to survive beyond their original owner, if properly cared for, it helps the next woodworker to know with what they’re dealing. At least that’s the intent…
On the chance that this wasn’t an isolated case (sorry), I thought I’d post a PDF copy of that document here.
For a custom client piece, this page gets printed (in a reduced format), laminated, then fastened to it in an inconspicuous area (which the patron is unlikely to encounter in “normal” use) with double-stick tape. I also hand them a full-sized version during delivery. With luck, it won’t get tossed aside, and ignored like almost every product instruction sheet!
Except for about a dozen, the marquetry panels are complete. I’ll start mailing them out Monday. If you haven’t already updated your mailing address with Kickstarter, let me know before then. Otherwise, someone living at your previous address will receive a surprise. 🙂
Four sets of pieces that will compose the marquetry panels
Excuse me for a moment while I speak to my Kickstarter backers…
A long time ago, you helped me start this project by funding its materials. The reward for one of these support levels was a framed marquetry panel. Since last December, I’ve focused my efforts on producing the marquetry panels for your reward. I’m getting close to sending this to you, but I need to ask a favor. Please verify your mailing address with Kickstarter. This is the address to which I’ll ship. If it’s incorrect it’ll result in further delays, and you’ve already waited long enough.
With these out the door, I plan to concentrate on creating the final version of the table. Keep watching this site for further details. Thank you again for your consideration, patience, and support of this project.
Keith Turner contacted me after my last post, and made me reconsider a potential solution I’d dismissed earlier; dividing the top marquetry into three parts. The problem, as you recall, is that the dimensions of the complete table top marquetry are beyond the capabilities of the saws to which I have access. The issue with dividing the marquetry into sections is that there really are no convenient division lines. Unless, we employ a trick!
The above image shows the left side of the top marquetry. Notice how the leaves near the top-center of the photo don’t quite reach the border? A little more difficult to detect is that the end of the ribbon just peaking out from the scale (near the 14 1/2 inch mark) is also just shy of the lower border. These appear to be the most likely dividing points. If I used any of the traditional marquetry saw methods, however, I’d be forced to cut across the grain which would leave a visible discontinuity. But, what if those background sections weren’t present?
A close examination of the drawing shows that these extreme sections occur in the outwardly curved portions between the corner, and center border shells. A straightforward method for constructing the field might be to edge join veneer of the appropriate species to create a rectangle large enough to contain the desired shape when finished. Then, trim it to this shape. What if we took a different approach and cut lengthwise (that is, with the grain) between these shells (red line in the photo below)? This would leave us with terminal points (blue arrows) which we could use to create three distinct sections!
Now, each of the three sections is within the throat depths of an existing saw, and the missing field pieces can be rejoined once the marquetry has been completed! This should be completely “invisible” if the background veneer is chosen carefully.
For the past few months, all of my focus has been on the marquetry panels for the Kickstarter (KS) backers. These are about one-fifth a section of the entire top. When I look beyond this boundary, I get nervous! The KS panel is an edited version of the top which has A LOT OF DETAIL!
YIKES!
Step-by-step, I will be able to address this…
The problem I face next deals with the size of the complete top. If you study pictures of the original, you’ll see that the long grain direction of the background veneer runs parallel to the long direction of the top, and there isn’t an obvious opportunity to break the marquetry into discrete sections. The issue is, I don’t have a saw with a throat depth (the distance from the blade to the nearest obstruction, whatever it is) sufficient to cut the entire top as one piece; not my fretsaw, and certainly not the mini-chevalet. I don’t think that even a typical full-sized chevalet could even handle the task. It would have to have been purpose built. (Side note: to be certain, I checked with the school, and as I suspected, the throat depth of their chevalets are also too small.)
Roubo says that marquetry of this kind was created by laying down the background veneer first, then cutting the marquetry in using a shoulder knife. While I could cut the design into the background this way, I’m working with 1/32 inch thick veneer pieces. It’d be tough, slow going. Plus, I’m not skilled with the shoulder knife!
Another solution is to build a frame jig saw (see picture below), the foot-powered equivalent of a large scroll saw. Since chevalets in their present form weren’t around in the mid-1700s, this type of saw may have been used to cut marquetry for some Oeben furniture, as it existed at least a century prior.
While I could certainly build one to solve my issue, it would again, delay the project. Neither of these solutions strikes me as obvious though…
