From a 1.4 ton oak burr

[ucoulddoit]

In my last post on this thread I said I’d add some pictures of the process of making the dining table top and notes about the design process. So here they are and it’s quite a long post (again!).

 

The two book matched planks I’d selected for the top had an ideal shape for a dining table. But It was a dilemma whether or not to retain the natural edges on the planks. Photo below is the pair of planks just after milling. My wife wanted ‘smooth’ edges on the table, whereas I was leaning towards keeping at least some of the natural edges. The solution turned out to be a compromise!

 

 

In terms of design, about 10 years ago I made the mistake of thinking I didn’t need to do any design for a smaller table with book matched planks as these were natural edged planks! It had a quirky shape, but once the initial novelty passed I realised it wasn’t a success and after several years I was ready to chuck it away. I did manage to rescue it by re-shaping the top, removing the natural edges and from that experience learnt that not all natural edges are desirable. So for the current project, I started by experimenting with different ways of putting the two book matched planks together as shown in the following photos. Lots of options!

 

 

 

 

 

After sketching and thinking about various options, I concluded that an overall simple shape would be best, as the burr oak is quite dramatic and I wanted the timber itself to be the main visual element of the design. So, I opted to have curved edges on the table top, with the curve similar to the natural edges on the planks. The planks were wider at one end than the other. As I wanted a degree of symmetry, I decided the table top should be the same width at both ends. That was achieved by ripping the planks lengthwise to remove a tapered piece from both planks, while maintaining a good match for the grain either side of the joint.

 

I’d been conscious from the start that the slab edges were not a ‘smooth’ shape from end to end. Near the middle, they bulged outwards a couple of inches over about a foot or so. I was pretty certain that I’d remove these bulges and possibly all the natural edges. But decided to proceed in stages, and left them on while the planks were flattened and thicknessed.

 

The following photos show checking the flatness of the planks using straight edges. They had stayed remarkably flat during drying apart from the last 6 to 8 inches at each end where both planks had deflected about 5mm. Should have had stickers at the ends of the planks! As advised several times by others on the forum and I wish I’d seen their advice before I milled this timber.

 

 

 

The dried planks were just over 50mm thickness and I reckoned they would be down to 40mm once flattened. Maybe even 35mm, to reduce the weight a bit more. Each of the sawn planks weighed 35kg, so it looked like the finished table top might weigh about 50kg! I wasn’t looking forwards to working alone on that, struggling to move it about without damaging it. But overall, still easier starting with a pair of book matched planks instead of a thicker, single wide slab.

 

Next stage was to flatten the top of both planks using a router. I removed the minimum necessary to create a flat face with the aim of minimising any change to the grain match either side of the joint. Both planks were then machined to a constant thickness by flattening the underside using the router. I find using a router on burry timbers like these virtually eliminates tearout which is almost inevitable if a planer / thicknesser is used instead.

 

 

On previous projects I’d then used a hand held belt sander and random orbit sander to remove marks left by the router cutter. But that was quite time consuming. Also, I wanted this table top to be as flat as possible, so both planks were run through a 900mm wide belt sander several times which worked a treat. I was aiming to reduce the thickness from just over 40mm down to 35mm. Not sure what grit size belt was fitted, but each pass on the sander removed 0.25mm or less and as the machining / router cutter marks were removed by the time it was 40mm thick and the finish was really good, we stopped at that point. If reducing the thickness more had been necessary, the belt could have been changed to a coarser grit at the very start to remove more on each pass. The company who did this for me were impressed by the two book matched planks after sanding. They were obviously ‘valuable’ and it was increasingly clear it would be a shame to waste their potential with a poor design.

 

Once back home, I set to finalising the shape of the table top including the decision about whether or not to keep the natural edges. I first removed the two ‘bulges’ which really  improved the overall shape.

 

 

 

Thinking about what to do next, I realised that removing the natural edges from end to end and having a smooth curve would reduce the table width by about 4 inches from 40 to 36 inches. I wasn’t keen on that. So, it was time for my wife to have a look at the two planks laid together. She liked the overall shape, the mix of natural and formed edges and the roughly symmetrical shape so we agreed that would be the final solution. Progressing gradually in stages, we’d achieved a good compromise instead of sticking with the first idea we each started with! So both the ‘client’ and maker were happy which is a good way of getting future commissions (she has a long list for me to work away at!).

 

The edges of the planks for the butt joint were trimmed straight and square using a kitchen worktop cutter in a router running along an aluminium straightedge.

 

 

Then a groove was cut in the side of each plank for the 6mm thick plywood spline.

 

Once glued together, final shaping of the edges was done with a drum sander and nylon wire brush in a drill. I find the nylon wire brush gives a ‘burnished’ appearance on the burry edges which I like.

 

As an aside, talking about finishing processes, about 25 years ago I attended a woodworking night class at a local technical college so that I had access to a large bandsaw and planer / thicknesser. One of the other students made nice stuff, but I was quite taken aback when instead of using abrasive paper for the final finishing, he used a hand held steel wire brush to roughen all the surfaces! Truth is I thought he was nuts. But 25 years on I’m now much more aware of the multitude of design options in all walks of life and look back on his work with a degree of admiration. He was relaxed about doing his own thing, experimenting, instead of following fashion or a text book. That approach is what now keeps me interested in making stuff, after over half a century of woodworking, although I’m not ready to copy his finishing method with a wire brush!

 

 

 

 

 

Wide chamfers were cut on the underside so the edges reduce from 40mm thickness in the middle to 20mm at the corners. Just to make it appear a bit lighter and improve the overall appearance. I couldn’t draw a line on the natural edges for the chamfers, so made shallow saw cuts, increasingly deep towards the corners, as a guide for planing the varying depth chamfers.

 

 

 

 

Then sanding, filling with bronze resin, more sanding, more filling and eventually the first coat of oil was applied and it all suddenly seemed worthwhile.

 

  

Quite a long post as I mentioned at the start which I suppose highlights the amount of thinking and making that goes into a table top like this. A friend who has commissioned several pieces of furniture from other makers took one look at the oiled top and said she thought the finished table would fetch £10K and she would be happy to buy it for that! But it’s not for sale, so I won’t know if she is pulling my leg or would follow it through. Quite a thought though……..

  

The final weight for the 40mm thick top is 45kg. I’m sure 35mm thickness would have been adequate which would have reduced the weight to just under 40kg. Might still seem a bit ‘over engineered’? Possibly is, but the top has quite large spans and cantilevered edges, so it needs to be thicker than a traditional design with rails on four sides supporting the top. Also, the burry timber may not be as strong in places as straight grained planks.

 

In terms of milling, these two planks were sawn at just over 50mm and I was fortunate they stayed really flat when drying and was able to keep them as single wide planks, 40mm finished thickness. If they had cupped appreciably, I would need to have split them in half and then jointed them back together. I’ve done that before, so that I could use my 10 inch planer thicknesser instead of using the router, for a table top which has four planks, cut from two wide book matched planks. But, although the additional two joints are virtually invisible, I feel there is something more desirable about two wide, matched planks and a single joint on the centreline. And I can see why a single very wide slab with no joints might be even more desirable. Recently I was looking back over the first few pages on the milling forum and came across advice to mill burr oak at 65mm thickness, then re-saw it after drying in order to reduce the distortion which can be quite significant when drying burrs. I guess after drying, it might just be possible to get two 25mm flat finished planks from a 65mm slab?

 

Currently working on the frame to support the top and will post pictures and notes in due course.

 

Andrew

 

 

[ucoulddoit]

More or less finished this dining table so here are a few photos. It’s a fairly simple trestle type table design. It’s just over 1.7m long, and comfortably suitable for 6 people for day to day use, two each side and one at each end. But it can accommodate an extra person at each side if needed, making 8 in total. 

 

Here is the finished table. Not the best picture as the lighting doesn’t really bring out the glow of the burr oak. But you’ll get the idea.

 

 

Had our evening meal using it today with children plus grand children and it was good to be able to just enjoy it with good company. Making a dining table was the prime reason I bought the burr oak butt about 11 years ago. And the day dream of making a burr oak dining table pre-dates that by a few years, after seeing a gorgeous, much larger, single plank burry oak table at an exhibition. So it’s taken about 15 years to get here!

  

When I bought the oak butt I was aware the slabs for the top would only just be long enough for this type of trestle design. Another 3 to 6 inches would have been preferable and I’d been hoping to find a burr oak log suitable for milling long, wide, table sized slabs. After several years of casual searching, when I saw this burr oak butt for sale close to home, which promised pretty stunning timber, I decided to compromise on the length and it’s turned out fine. I guess I could have bought a large wide slab from a sawmill, possibly dry and ready for use. But I was keen to start with a whole log, get it milled, dry the wood, then take my pick of the best slabs for projects needing large flawless areas of burry timber. I wanted to use it as a learning process with a longer term view of one day making use of these skills for a business. It’s worked out much more economical working that way, as I’ll be using all the milled timber (eventually!). But I did have quite a bit of previous experience of this whole process so that reduced the risk of ending up with a pile of (very expensive) firewood.

  

The last post discussed the design of the table top, so here are a few notes about the trestle supports. The following picture is a similar table made from two book matched planks of burry elm about 8 years ago which was used as the starting point for the design of this burr oak table. It had an ‘inside out theme’ of natural edges along the centre of the table top, trestles and rail, with formed, smooth edges on the outsides.

 

 

It’s been well admired over the years, but ever since finishing it, I’ve felt the design of the trestle supports could be improved. They are good and strong, simple to make and the table is very stable. But I’ve always been uneasy about the aesthetics, although my wife thinks they look fine. Picture below shows one of the trestles. My main issues are that I dislike the way the top rail spans the full width, so the end grain is visible at the top of the curved sides. Also, there is a noticeable colour variation between the four pieces of wood.

 

 

So I spent a while thinking about how to improve the design of the trestles for the burr oak table and started with a few sketches, see below. Followed by a photo of the final result which bears a close resemblance to the elm trestles! So it turned into a case of incremental improvement instead of starting from scratch. I’m much happier with the revised design. The colours of the four pieces of wood match nicely, the curved uprights are book matched (as was done on the elm table). And the top rail is fitted between the curved uprights and set back a bit. I feel setting it back a bit really helps the visual impression of the curved pieces going all the way up to the underside of the table top. I suppose no one will see that unless they crawl underneath the table. But at least I know that effort has gone into improving the design, still using a similar amount of material and no more difficult to make.

 

 

 

 

Instead of small wood ‘buttons’ to attach the top, it is fixed to the trestle with four, 5mm thick stainless steel plates. These are screwed into the end grain of the uprights with slotted holes for the fixings into the top which may expand and contract over time.

  

The trestles are made from two slabs of the burr oak which were a book matched pair, but not as good as the other five pairs as there are shakes and splits. See photos below. I felt they weren’t suitable for use as large slabs of timber and cutting them into smaller pieces was the best way to use them. But I guess they could have been used in a design with plenty of coloured resin to fill the defects? Never made anything like that though. I’m intending to use parts of these two slabs including the natural edges for a future project, so I cut off these curved sections first. Then used templates for the trestle parts to mark them out avoiding the worst of the splits and shakes.

 

 

 

The following photos show one of the mdf templates being made. A thin flexible strip of wood was used to create a pleasing curve to draw round with a pencil. Then the waste wood was removed on the bandsaw, sawing to within about 3mm of the pencil line. Then a Fisch Flexi Curve ( available from Axminster tools, quite pricey, but well used over the years ) was attached to the mdf with screws so that it exactly followed the curve. Then the remaining waste mdf was removed using a bearing guided router cutter following the Flexi Curve which was then unscrewed leaving the completed template immediately ready for use. A bit of a faff, but for repeated identical shaping, it’s good to use the router and a template which creates a more or less finished and accurate shape and surface very quickly.

 

 

 

For the rail between the trestles I’d put an offcut to one side for this. But was subsequently concerned that although it was the right size, it was too plain and not a good match to the timbers in the trestles. As it was the last component for the table, I decided to choose another piece from the pile of burr oak. This time considering the colour, burr, grain, etc. instead of just finding a bit of wood the right size and minimising waste. It seemed a shame to cut a good looking medium sized slab into smaller pieces. But I’d decided it wasn’t worth compromising at this stage and glad I made that decision. 

 

Sketch below shows the overall sizes of the oak table and the starting point was the size of the available slabs for the top. After making the elm table previously, with hindsight I realised the space between the trestles needs to accommodate two chairs pushed under the table. I hadn’t thought about that, and was lucky there was just enough space. But I’ve seen a finished table where this wasn’t allowed for and the chairs wouldn’t fit under the top when not being used. So that’s a pitfall with this design to be wary of. Some chairs are wider than others, so the dimensions on the sketch won’t necessarily work. I chose chairs for this table before finalising the trestle design.The table top cantilevers 330mm beyond the trestles at each end which I reckon is the minimum needed to sit at the end and also to be able to push a chair most of the way in when not in use.

 

 

My plan now is to start using the table and do a bit more finishing / oiling on the top after it’s acclimatised for a few months. It’s in a room with lots of windows which gets pretty warm on occasions, so I envisage a wee bit of movement in the burry wood, despite being dried down to 10% moisture content and stored in a low humidity environment for several years before starting. 

 

How do I feel it’s turned out after taking 15 years to get here? Well, if I’d pursued my daydream all those years ago of setting up as a furniture designer / maker, I’d be happy now to replicate this design, having reached the end of a trial and error process to find a solution that I’m comfortable with. That doesn’t mean the design would appeal to everyone, and it could be further refined. I guess some folk would be more enthused by a unique / arty design. But that type of work is just way beyond me and I suspect many others also? So instead of trying (and failing) to copy ‘arty’ designs created by others. Over the years I’ve progressively focused more and more on bringing together my inherent interests of geometry, engineering details, precision and proportion, then applied incremental improvement on successive projects. I’ve found that works for me and I’ve had enough positive comments over the years to confirm the designs also appeal to a fair proportion of other people. So perhaps I could have made a go of setting up in business? But retired now and very unlikely that I’ll pursue the day dream of setting up in business. Happy to carry on as a hobby woodworker making stuff for the family and so I thought I’d share all these thoughts as maybe there are others who can make use of them.

  

I’ve used about half the planks from this burr oak butt over the past 18 months making the three projects discussed so far on this thread. Planning to make a dresser for my daughter next, with the design developed from two past projects in elm which are shown in the following two photos. Lots of natural edges! First one is shelves made about 20 years ago for my son from a single small log bought from a firewood merchant, which he used for his TV and Hi-Fi when a teenager. Second picture is a cupboard / shelves, made for myself, which fits into a wall alcove in our bedroom. Both pieces are favourites of mine, and my daughter, so looking forwards to the challenge of re-working the designs to bring them together into a single piece.

 

 

 

The dresser is a project for next year though, as I’m taking a break from woodworking to work on a small building project. So the lack of posts over the coming months on this thread doesn’t mean I’ve given up! 

 

Andrew

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by ucoulddoit
Chair width notes added

[difflock]

Simply astounding vison and craftsmanship Andrew, making for lovely lovely furniture. 

[nepia]

All that explanation and my reaction is one word - wow!

[Jamie C]

Your work is outstanding.

 

I love the way you're working with the curves and shapes of the burls to retain their "burliness" in a way that doesn't make it overly obvious.

 

 

[ucoulddoit]

Thanks for all the encouraging comments.

 

Andrew

[ucoulddoit]

Not my own work, but the attached photos continue the theme of ‘From a 1.4 ton oak burr’ and are a hollow form turned from an offcut of the oak burr. 16 inches high x 8 inches diameter and it looks great!

 

 

 

 

It was made by Darren Crisp, https://www.darrencrisp.com/ and has taken about a year since we first met to discuss the commission. We initially worked together to decide how to make best use the offcut / lump of burr, and also to get to a rough shape that I liked. Then he worked on refining it and initial hollowing.

 

 

 

The offcut / lump of burr had been air dried under cover for about 12 years, but the inside when we cut into it was still about 20% moisture content. So, I brought it home for about 8 months to dry and acclimatise the wood to suit the humidity in the room where it will be kept. It was weighed monthly and gradually got lighter as moisture evaporated until after about 6 months the weight remained constant having lost about 350g of water. The following graph is the record of the monthly weights (not total weight). Quite surprising how much water had evaporated. Should now be fine in a centrally heated environment.

 

 

Darren then trued up the shape as it had distorted a bit when drying at home. The hollowing out was completed and defects were filled with bronze resin. Darren suggested leaving the ‘burrs’ unfilled and so we only filled the defects, i.e. drying cracks, etc. and that was good advice. A couple of worm eaten areas were consolidated using Ronseal wet rot wood hardener (very thin resin) and were left unfilled. He then carried out the final finishing, down to 2000 grit and it looked immaculate even before being oiled which I did back at home.

 

The hours fairly mounted up for the commission, but the finished hollow form is a great addition to the collection of things being made from the 1.4 ton oak burr.

 

Andrew