# Were you to glue up this table top???



## WillemJM

Would you glue-up in the rough and then finish, or would you thickness plane first, then glue-up and finish???


----------



## cabinetman

WillemJM said:


> Would you glue-up in the rough and then finish, or would you thickness plane first, then glue-up and finish???
> 
> View attachment 32340


What would you do?












 







.


----------



## firemedic

At least skip plane em so that you can properly joint the edges. No reason to wait till after the glue up though.

~tom ...it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...


----------



## woodnthings

*My plan would be*

I would joint one surface for flatness, then joint both edges referencing off the flat surface to the fence. I would not thickness plane, as you want to keep as much material thickness as possible.

Knowing I have a source/friend with a 42" wide belt sander, I would select the boards for flatness, edge joint them for straightness and glue them with cauls to keep the whole setup as flat as possible.
Glue may cause the boards to shift slightly when pressure is applied, so be watchful and apply pressure gradually. After it's set I'd bring it to the nearest cabinet shop and have them run it though the wide belt. :thumbsup:

If you are up for a challenge with hand planes then have at it. It will be rewarding if you can accomplish it, but keep in mind it will take several planes in scary sharp condition.  bill


----------



## WillemJM

cabinetman said:


> What would you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I'm not sure, have to make a decision.

Dimensions are kind of within 3/32", if I thickness plane it will save a lot of time, but if I hand belt sand, or hand plane after glue up, it will be a thicker top. Hard Maple, may get some tear-out on the planer, could make things worse.


----------



## cabinetman

WillemJM said:


> I'm not sure, have to make a decision.
> 
> Dimensions are kind of within 3/32", if I thickness plane it will save a lot of time, but if I hand belt sand, or hand plane after glue up, it will be a thicker top. Hard Maple, may get some tear-out on the planer, could make things worse.


You could face joint the good side. Then edge joint both edges. Then plane for thickness on the bad side. When you clamp up for gluing, cauls done properly should align the good side. You may wind up with just cleaning off the glue.











​
.


----------



## sawdustfactory

I'm with C-man. Joint, edge joint, rough plane, glue, finish plane/sand.


----------



## WillemJM

Thanks for all the help.

I had one board which differed too much in dimension, decided to replace it and my glue-up is ready. Decided to leave everything in the rough biggest difference is around 1/32" so we will play with hand planes, the exercise will do me good.

I have never used cauls, good idea one day. I use a joint bit in my shaper, which is very forgiving, it aligns both the boards and prevents cupping, even if you clamp wrong. The joint kind of fixes that.

Joint bits are used a lot in Europe, but not well known in the US. If you don't know their tricks, you will probably end up throwing them in the trash and never try again.

If my dimensions were off more, Cabinet Man had the right idea I believe.

Pictures below.

Glue up









Joint bit


----------



## cabinetman

WillemJM said:


> I had one board which differed too much in dimension, decided to replace it and my glue-up is ready. Decided to leave everything in the rough biggest difference is around 1/32" so we will play with hand planes, the exercise will do me good.


That's one way of looking at it.



WillemJM said:


> I have never used cauls, good idea one day.


Cauls will save your butt. Using them is about as accurate of a way possible to get good alignment. I wouldn't do even a simple glue up without setting up for their use. Besides just using a straight edge, very thin shims make the process more precise, and less of a chance for mis-alignment.



WillemJM said:


> I use a joint bit in my shaper, which is very forgiving, it aligns both the boards and prevents cupping, even if you clamp wrong. The joint kind of fixes that.


I've used that type of bit in both a shaper and a router table and it's not forgiving at all. You wind up with what you machined, and there is no fudge factor.



WillemJM said:


> Joint bits are used a lot in Europe, but not well known in the US. If you don't know their tricks, you will probably end up throwing them in the trash and never try again.


You might have just found out about joint bits. They may be used in Europe, but they have been used here in the US for as long as I can remember. It's not like a revelation that the idea has just crept up on our shores, making their use a whole new experience.

In using that bit, the recommended steps would be to plane for thickness first. Reason being, that the alignment of the parts after machining depends on the bit being centered to the edge of the board. Used in a table, the board gets machined one side, and the mating board gets flipped to the other side. The possibility of misalignment of the machined edge is prevalent with any deflection in the length of the run, or operator error. There's very little that can be done once the joint(s) have been machined.

In a perfect world, with perfect stock, and a perfect operator, I still wouldn't use that bit for gluing up panels. All can be going so well, and...oops...there goes the edge with a little tear out. The process can turn out to be one big fire drill, costing time and materials.












 







.


----------



## WillemJM

cabinetman said:


> That's one way of looking at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Cauls will save your butt. Using them is about as accurate of a way possible to get good alignment. I wouldn't do even a simple glue up without setting up for their use. Besides just using a straight edge, very thin shims make the process more precise, and less of a chance for mis-alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> I've used that type of bit in both a shaper and a router table and it's not forgiving at all. You wind up with what you machined, and there is no fudge factor.
> 
> 
> 
> You might have just found out about joint bits. They may be used in Europe, but they have been used here in the US for as long as I can remember. It's not like a revelation that the idea has just crept up on our shores, making their use a whole new experience.
> 
> In using that bit, the recommended steps would be to plane for thickness first. Reason being, that the alignment of the parts after machining depends on the bit being centered to the edge of the board. Used in a table, the board gets machined one side, and the mating board gets flipped to the other side. The possibility of misalignment of the machined edge is prevalent with any deflection in the length of the run, or operator error. There's very little that can be done once the joint(s) have been machined.
> 
> In a perfect world, with perfect stock, and a perfect operator, I still wouldn't use that bit for gluing up panels. All can be going so well, and...oops...there goes the edge with a little tear out. The process can turn out to be one big fire drill, costing time and materials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


You are right about a joint bit being around forever. I come from a woodworking family, 8 generations long and they have been around as long as I can remember.

Like you, everyone in the US I have ever spoken to, shy away from them. In Europe, most cabinet makers use them, the way I was taught at 11 years old.

You are also right that once machined, that's it and it is what it is.

Boards don't have to be the same thickness though and if they are not, it is possible to get perfect alignment on one face, by measuring and adjusting for each cut. I can get an accuracy of up to 0.001" that way. In the latter case if a board varies in thickness across it's length, a shaper won't do it but a router will.

You can also glue up twisted and bowed boards and have them straight after glue-up, using a router and a joint bit, provided you plan the machining carefully.

The reason I have never tried cauls, is because they require more space in my shop to store. In the old days glue was not what it is today, which is why this is what I was taught.

I will try cauls one day though.


----------



## cabinetman

WillemJM said:


> Boards don't have to be the same thickness though and if they are not, it is possible to get perfect alignment on one face, by measuring and adjusting for each cut. I can get an accuracy of up to 0.001" that way.


Well, I gotta hand it to ya. I wouldn't bother with that kind of insanity. Besides, I stay away from measurements that far from the decimal. I may choose to split the 1/64" line and that's about it for me, but don't tell my clients.



WillemJM said:


> The reason I have never tried cauls, is because they require more space in my shop to store. In the old days glue was not what it is today, which is why this is what I was taught.
> 
> I will try cauls one day though.


In the old days the glue was pretty much as it is today. Titebond, and Elmers did then, what they do now. I don't think resorcinol glue has changed one bit. As for storing cauls, no problem, they are just straight edges, and can get hung, or stacked as needed. I consider them as important as any other jig necessary to do quality work.












 







.


----------



## WillemJM

cabinetman said:


> In the old days the glue was pretty much as it is today. Titebond, and Elmers did then, what they do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


That depends on how old you are, or how old your mentor was.:icon_smile:

This glue-up is done and as always it's one of the more nervous jobs, but it went perfect as planned.

Next time I will try cauls, what lumber did you use for them and were they laminated, or solid lumber?

Also, if your boards are not too straight, lining up with shims, you have 20 minutes right? On a large job, that is not much.

PS.

0.4mm is a lot easier than 1/64", or can I twist your arm to work withing 1/2mm?:laughing:


----------



## firemedic

I hate to be THAT guy (ok maybe I don't hate it) but William, if your so damned sure of what you are doing and how to do it then why the thread / question???

C-man made a lot of good points and I'm having a hard time understanding why you asked if you have no plans of heading advice.

I'm with c-man all the same but to each his own.

~tom ...it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...


----------



## WillemJM

firemedic said:


> I hate to be THAT guy (ok maybe I don't hate it) but William, if your so damned sure of what you are doing and how to do it then why the thread / question???
> 
> C-man made a lot of good points and I'm having a hard time understanding why you asked if you have no plans of heading advice.
> 
> I'm with c-man all the same but to each his own.
> 
> ~tom ...it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...


Because we are all different with different ideas. So what I have learnt in this thread is that the way I glue up a top does not swing from the normal tree. Next time, perhaps I do it your way and maybe that works better.

In the end, it's good to hear other opionions, but also good to do what we are used to, if time is an issue. The time to make or get cauls for my project was not in my time budget this time.

For me this is not a comptetion, it is about sharing woodwork practices and thanks for those who contributed, I did learn something.


----------



## woodnthings

woodnthings said:


> I would joint one surface for flatness, then joint both edges referencing off the flat surface to the fence. I would not thickness plane, as you want to keep as much material thickness as possible.
> 
> Knowing I have a source/friend with a 42" wide belt sander, I would select the boards for flatness, edge joint them for straightness and glue them with cauls to keep the whole setup as flat as possible.
> Glue may cause the boards to shift slightly when pressure is applied, so be watchful and apply pressure gradually. After it's set I'd bring it to the nearest cabinet shop and have them run it though the wide belt. :thumbsup:
> 
> If you are up for a challenge with hand planes then have at it. It will be rewarding if you can accomplish it, but keep in mind it will take several planes in scary sharp condition.  bill


I'm glad no one noticed my response... :blink: bill


----------



## thegrgyle

woodnthings said:


> I'm glad no one noticed my response... :blink: bill


:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: That one made me laugh OUT LOUD!

Thanks

Fabian


----------



## woodnthings

*I do my best*

I either offer good advice or advice that no one notices, but that's Ok 'cause I have attention deficit disfunction. If I don't get any attention, I get disfunctionally deficient, but I'm able to function OK without paying attention. The last time I paid attention was in high school when the head of the discipline room in charge of 5,280 boys threw a chalk filled eraser to the head of a guy sleeping in the back in plane geometry class. After the dust cleared he asked "Is everyone paying attention now?" :yes: Corporal punishment was "allowed" then. :blink: bill


----------



## firemedic

I'm sorry I left you out, C-man's comments were just last in line. I gave advise too with no heed too... I was simply annoyed by the disregard for advise after post.

~tom ...it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...


----------



## Joe Lyddon

I was going to suggest gluing the top in smaller sections...
... of 2 pieces per section...
... remove glue & thickness plane as required.

Glue 2 other pieces together... & those pieces together... building to two pieces of equal size...

Then, glue the last two sections together...

Then, it would be ready to Finish... I think I'd wait and do all of the Finishing at one time.

Might be easier than fighting all of the slipping & sliding of ALL pieces at the same time...

Looks like a nice top you're making...

Looks like you;re getting there... too! :thumbsup:


----------



## weavilswoodshop

I admit that I'm a little lost as to the query on this thread as to the glue up of a table top by an experienced woodworker but then I find myself lost on a lot of things and I guess an open discussion concerning different ways of completing the same task could be a good thing. I have my way of doing it but enough suggestions have already been submitted so I wont go there but I do have a question about using a joint bit as was shown. Will you be leaving the grain end of the table exposed or will you add a breadboard edge? If you use this glue joint on all your glue ups are you pretty much limited to square or rectanguler table tops? Just curious...


----------



## Lola Ranch

Just my method or $0.02 worth. 

Run one face on jointer, then both edges, with good face against fence of course, then through the thickness planer then just glue it, then touch up with a hand plane.

I would find the edge joint tooling unattractive especially with something like these chair seats and a contrasting wood lay-up. If you are having trouble getting the width needed, remember the edge joint will cause you to loose overall width.

Name calling? That is the most childish behavior I've ever seen on this site. I would be surprised that anyone who would resort to name calling in a thread would have the patience build anything.

If you don't care for my opinion please offer constructive criticism or just ignore me.

Bret


----------



## cabinetman

weavilswoodshop said:


> I admit that I'm a little lost as to the query on this thread as to the glue up of a table top by an experienced woodworker but then I find myself lost on a lot of things and I guess an open discussion concerning different ways of completing the same task could be a good thing. I have my way of doing it but enough suggestions have already been submitted so I wont go there but I do have a question about using a joint bit as was shown.


If you have suggestions, post them. Just because there has been many opinions submitted, doesn't mean you should not give yours. While many suggestions may sound similar, careful reading of the posts may reveal that there are slight differences. Or maybe the order of the steps vary. 

Just because a member's suggestion doesn't get mentioned as a possibility for a solution, there's no need to get defensive or complain about not being recognized. That happens all the time. 

There are times that the OP will fail to include certain details which makes coming up with a suggestion a long drawn out novel, when in fact the suggestion would have taken a different turn if full details were initially given. This can make a responder go off on an explanation that's off course. Not much can be done if the question is so open ended.

So, my suggestion is to make suggestions to the best you can, based on the details given. Our work is very detail oriented. Understanding what we read and see has its merits, whether it's reading a post, or reading a plan.












 







.


----------



## WillemJM

Thanks for all the responses to this thread.

Some of the questions asked.

The top will have breadboard ends.

Yes I have done a few round tops as well, using a joint bit.

The reason I use a joint bit is very simple. My dad had 3 woodworking factories with about 400 employees, he passed away in 1996 and I use to work for him from school holidays at 11 years old, to before going to college. That is the way they did things and the way I was taught. I don't do this for a living any more, meaning not doing it every day, although I may have the skills I am also out of practice and sometimes a bit nervous when it comes to executing an imporant step. That is why I asked for advice.

To those who got offended because I ended up doing it my own way, I can only say that for me it has never been important to be right or correct. The debate and learing process is what is important. Also, one can sometimes take a wrong decision and turn it into success. Anyways, Cabinet Man, if I frustrated you and Firemedic, here is my apology.


----------



## firemedic

I wasn't offended and I applaud you for having your own method of work. I often do things contrary to the norm because I was trained that way.

This spirit of this forum is sharing of knowledge. I learn from others and others learn from me. The forum is made up of every different skill level and it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between members experience levels.

That said I get frustrated by open ended questions about methodology when in actuality the OP knows where he's going. In other words the poster doesn't take the time to say, this is what I'm thinking I'm going to do - opinions / ideas? I / we then take time out of our busy day to try and help the OP by answering all of the unknowns (thinking the OP needs that) when instead the OP could have put the effort into the question and save everyone else the time and effort and keep it to a few subjective comments instead... "yes but exceptions" / "no, consider this" This is what C-Man was alluding to, I believe, when he mentioned open ended questions above.

So I'm sorry if I came off sounding like an  but you were kind of the straw for my camel as this happens quite a bit. I won't hold it against you and I hope that's mutual. Looking forward to seeing how your table turns out and some more of your projects in the future.

~tom ...it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...


----------



## WillemJM

firemedic said:


> I wasn't offended and I applaud you for having your own method of work. I often do things contrary to the norm because I was trained that way.
> 
> This spirit of this forum is sharing of knowledge. I learn from others and others learn from me. The forum is made up of every different skill level and it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between members experience levels.
> 
> That said I get frustrated by open ended questions about methodology when in actuality the OP knows where he's going. In other words the poster doesn't take the time to say, this is what I'm thinking I'm going to do - opinions / ideas? I / we then take time out of our busy day to try and help the OP by answering all of the unknowns (thinking the OP needs that) when instead the OP could have put the effort into the question and save everyone else the time and effort and keep it to a few subjective comments instead... "yes but exceptions" / "no, consider this" This is what C-Man was alluding to, I believe, when he mentioned open ended questions above.
> 
> So I'm sorry if I came off sounding like an  but you were kind of the straw for my camel as this happens quite a bit. I won't hold it against you and I hope that's mutual. Looking forward to seeing how your table turns out and some more of your projects in the future.
> 
> ~tom ...it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...


No worries Sir and appreciate your post.

Really all I asked in the original post was whether to glue up in the rough or thickness plane first, I did not ask how to glue up a top. By the way, as far as I can remember, every time I have mentioned the word "joint bit" in the USA, I have gotten into trouble. 

Below is a picture of the last table and chairs I did about 6 years ago. The top is Yellow Heart. I jointed one face flat, then thicness planed, then end jointed one end and ripped the other end with a Forrest ripping blade. The glue-up only saw finish sanding starting at 120 grit, the joint bit did the rest. The problem though is that I lost about 1/8" of thickness from the original lumber thickness and always wondered if I should do this again. If you have worked with Yellow Heart before, you will know hand planes are not easy.

In short, no matter what, if I mentioned joint bit in the OP, some of you would have been all over me and the debate would have started.:laughing:


----------



## woodnthings

*the joint bit debate*

While I own one, I haven't used it ...yet, so this is an interesting pro and con debate. While it may be best to plane all the work to a uniform thickness, I wonder if jointing one face, opposite/alternate, would give a registration surface? As long as the surfaced face was down on the table would it matter if the opposite face was not surfaced?
This way all the rough surfaces would be ^ up? Just throwing that out for "debate" :laughing: bill


----------



## Joe Lyddon

SORRY!

By all means do your Finish first... like you did on your table 6 years ago.... DO NOT GLUE-UP A TABLE TOP IN THE ROUGH FIRST.

I really don't know how you could do that!


----------



## GeorgeC

WillemJM,was one of the furniture factories that your father had the one in West End. It was right by the railroad tracks. If I remember it closed about 30 years ago. That furniture factory, Amonds peach orchard and Fletcher's Bar-B-Que are the things I most remember about West End.

George


----------



## WillemJM

woodnthings said:


> While I own one, I haven't used it ...yet, so this is an interesting pro and con debate. While it may be best to plane all the work to a uniform thickness, I wonder if jointing one face, opposite/alternate, would give a registration surface? As long as the surfaced face was down on the table would it matter if the opposite face was not surfaced?
> This way all the rough surfaces would be ^ up? Just throwing that out for "debate" :laughing: bill


Important to again note, than no-one I know in North America uses a joint bit, even although these things have been around forever. If you try one and you don't have patience, I will be surprized to not see it ending up in the trash can.

This is what I did on the top pictured in the thread.

I glued up in the rough, without planing any of the faces, because I wanted the top as thick as possible and my boards were reasonably equal thickness. Also the Maple I am using has a lot of cross grain in it and although I know how to grind blade angles to give no tear-out for this scenario of face jointing, I could not afford the time. Both edges were jointed, I could of used the joint bit to do this also, but the fence on my shaper was not long enough and I did not want to waste time making a fence for the job.

First board, measure thickness in several spots with a vernier caliper and obtain the average thickness. ( I can measure up to 0.001")

Measure the thickness of the joint bit.

Subtract the width measurement of the board from the width measurement of the joint bit and divide by 2.

Set the board on the shaper, lying right next to the installed joint bit. Set the vernier caliper to the dimension calculated above, one end on the cutter and start adjusting cutter height until the caliper depth point touches the board. The inner cutting edge should miss the jointed edge by about 0.001 by adjusting the fence, so we maintain the jointed edge.

After milling the first board the next is milled with the top facing down. If the next board is thicker or thinner than the previous, we have the choice of setting the cutter height to exactly match on one side of the table top, being an equal top face, or we have the choice to set the cutter height to divide the difference, meaning there will be a slight step both top and bottom of the table top.

I ended up within around 1/32" on my glue-up offset both faces. I could have aligned perfectly on the top of the table surface, but there are rough sawn marks that are also aroud 1/32", which is why I did not bother, as these have to be planed out.

Long time ago, 8 years I drove past a chopped down Walnut orchard and the owner gave me some logs. I had these cut into boards and dried them in my garage. They bowed real real real bad and I actually straigthened them by gluing up opposite bowed ends using a joint bit in a router. The end product needed some hand planing, but not much, the job pictured below.


----------



## WillemJM

GeorgeC said:


> WillemJM,was one of the furniture factories that your father had the one in West End. It was right by the railroad tracks. If I remember it closed about 30 years ago. That furniture factory, Amonds peach orchard and Fletcher's Bar-B-Que are the things I most remember about West End.
> 
> George


George, I know exactly where that factory is.

In answer to your question, no, I was born and raised overseas. The business was sold early 90's and all three factories are still in production, but more cabinet orientated today with some finished goods supplied from China, sadly.


----------



## mackem

Willem, that bottom picture showing a table top,
is one of the best that i've EVER seen. :yes::thumbsup:
It looks absolutely beautiful, and i'd be proud
as hell to have it in my home. :yes::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## woodnthings

*there are lots of glue joint bit users...*






This is a good video on the process, but his boards have been thickness planed to a uniform 3/4" I believe. 
In your explanation above, if the boards were not surfaced on one side and that side placed down on the table, how do you prevent variations in the surface from driving the joint up and down slightly creating a meandering joint line? Maybe I didn't grasp the concept?
I like the concept because it's a good idea to increase the glue surface and it will not allow any shifting during glue up. This is one of the most common question here, how do I "fix" this offset ...sand it, plane it, etc. 

Thanks for your explanation and the photos!  bill


----------



## WillemJM

woodnthings said:


> Infinity Cutting Tools - Glue Joint Router Bit Setup Block - YouTube
> 
> This is a good video on the process, but his boards have been thickness planed to a uniform 3/4" I believe.
> In your explanation above, if the boards were not surfaced on one side and that side placed down on the table, how do you prevent variations in the surface from driving the joint up and down slightly creating a meandering joint line? Maybe I didn't grasp the concept?
> I like the concept because it's a good idea to increase the glue surface and it will not allow any shifting during glue up. This is one of the most common question here, how do I "fix" this offset ...sand it, plane it, etc.
> 
> Thanks for your explanation and the photos!  bill


Interesting.

I don't do test cuts, as the way I measure is fast and precise.

Remember, you are jointing against a wide table surface as opposed to a narrow jointer fence, so small variations do not really matter. For bowed boards, I use a router against a straight edge, the latter as a fence, meaning the joint line follows the face profile. In the nesting tables above, I joined convex boards with concave boards, straightening out the tops. Face jointing would have been easier, but I would end up with thinner tops by almost 1/4"


----------



## Joe Lyddon

WillemJM said:


> Would you glue-up in the rough and then finish, or would you thickness plane first, then glue-up and finish???
> 
> View attachment 32340


OK, I'm curious...  :smile:

You obviously have skills far more better than what I have and I am here to learn... and help when I can...

Here, you ask a question & show some boards that appear to have been flattened, jointed, planed, and ripped. Those boards do not look "Rough" to me.

Is your question pointed to the boards shown...?

Did you know the answer to your question before you posted it with the goal being to teach us how to do something?

Did you get your question answered to your satisfaction?

If you glue-up boards in the Rough, I'd like to know How you do it and Why.

Thank you very much...

*You really do some GREAT woodworking & thank you for posting.*:thumbsup:


----------



## WillemJM

Joe Lyddon said:


> OK, I'm curious...  :smile:
> 
> You obviously have skills far more better than what I have and I am here to learn... and help when I can...
> 
> I still learn, everytime, but thanks for the complement.
> 
> Here, you ask a question & show some boards that appear to have been flattened, jointed, planed, and ripped. Those boards do not look "Rough" to me.
> 
> They are 1" thick Country Maple which I got at a steal of 98c BF a long time ago. They seem to have gone through a double cutter planer, but all the rough sawn marks were not removed. Some areas on the boards did not get touched by the planer blades at all.
> 
> I edge jointed them, but left the faces as they were. One board had areas (valleys) close to 3/4" thickness rough sawn marks. After some procrastination, and posting here I decided to replace this board.
> 
> Some of the boards are cupped, probably up to 1/8", some are bowed even more.
> 
> Hope that answers your question.
> 
> Is your question pointed to the boards shown...?
> 
> Yes
> 
> Did you know the answer to your question before you posted it with the goal being to teach us how to do something?
> 
> No. I wasn't sure if I should face joint and thickness plane, or not. My objective was not too spend too much time on the project, but also not to loose too much thickness of the boards. So I asked the question and it seems like everyone though I was asking how to do a glue-up.
> 
> Did you get your question answered to your satisfaction?
> 
> Lots of debate, we all do things different, there is no right or wrong IMHO.
> 
> If you glue-up boards in the Rough, I'd like to know How you do it and Why.
> 
> By in the rough, I meant without face jointing and thickness planing, so that the boards are not all exactly the same dimensions. With boards that are a little bowed and cupped this makes the glue-up more challenging and more work to finish, but I get a thicker top, by manipulating my joints. Also, if the top is not perfectly straight, I can tighten it onto the base aprons and get real close.
> 
> By not milling the faces, it looks as if I will have the top very close to 1" thick, no less than 15/16". If I took the other route and milled all the boards so they are flat and the same thickness, It would take a lot less time to finish the top, but I think I would of ended up with 3/4" as the final dimension.
> 
> In short, in a production shop we would always mill everything to be flat and same dimensions, but at home we have more time and can afford to wing it a bit.
> 
> Thank you very much...
> 
> *You really do some GREAT woodworking & thank you for posting.*:thumbsup:


Here is a picture showing the boards and the price I paid for not milling the faces. This being probably the worst area of the whole glue-up. If I did not use a joint bit, the results probably would have been much the same. I don't have cauls though and were too lazy to make them, or make a plan.


----------



## Joe Lyddon

*WillemJM*

*I am surprised!*
Yes, you can see it better in the last picture...

OK, did you do a lot of Hand Planing?
... Belt Sanding?
... Router work?

I don't think you have a power jointer, planer, or sander that wide do you?  :laughing:

Thank you...


----------



## Midlandbob

This has been an unusual thread.
For the sake of clarity and perhaps help newer table makers..
-
The "debate seems to be wether it is better to plane the 2nd face of the boards in a glue up before or after glue up?.
The thesis also seems that planing after glue up will end up with a thicker panel?
Any board once jointed flat will have a thinnest area. This can be made thicker in curved or bowed boards by cutting them less wide or shorter before jointing.
Therefore the final maximum thickness of the final panel is determined by the first jointing. The thinnest part of the thinnest board being used will be the maximum thickness of the table if both sides need to be planar and without flaws.
Jointing all boards to be included and thickness planning all board until all unacceptable surfaces are removed seems in order.
This also reveals the texture and colour of the board and allow optimal choice of which boards to place where and which side up.
It also let's you notice any tear out areas and orient all the board the correct eat for final finish planing or determining the need for thickness sanding if the tear out cant be managed.
It also let's you use small clamps on the board join lines to keep boards indexes to each other and avoid slipping.
For wide tables you can glue up sub sections at your maximum planing or sanding width then join the sections after they are machined.
Why would you not get fully jointed and thickness planed board???. This would also apply to hand planing.
Don't hurt me I bruise easily.


----------



## WillemJM

Midlandbob said:


> This has been an unusual thread.
> For the sake of clarity and perhaps help newer table makers..
> -
> The "debate seems to be wether it is better to plane the 2nd face of the boards in a glue up before or after glue up?.
> The thesis also seems that planing after glue up will end up with a thicker panel?
> Any board once jointed flat will have a thinnest area. This can be made thicker in curved or bowed boards by cutting them less wide or shorter before jointing.
> Therefore the final maximum thickness of the final panel is determined by the first jointing. The thinnest part of the thinnest board being used will be the maximum thickness of the table if both sides need to be planar and without flaws.
> Jointing all boards to be included and thickness planning all board until all unacceptable surfaces are removed seems in order.
> This also reveals the texture and colour of the board and allow optimal choice of which boards to place where and which side up.
> It also let's you notice any tear out areas and orient all the board the correct eat for final finish planing or determining the need for thickness sanding if the tear out cant be managed.
> It also let's you use small clamps on the board join lines to keep boards indexes to each other and avoid slipping.
> For wide tables you can glue up sub sections at your maximum planing or sanding width then join the sections after they are machined.
> Why would you not get fully jointed and thickness planed board???. This would also apply to hand planing.
> Don't hurt me I bruise easily.


Everything you said is correct. If I had to do a top for commission work, that is exactly what I will do, meaning mill the boards to same dimension and then glue-up. Probably work with 5/4 though to get at least 1".

As this is for myself, I can afford to experiment. I have not had time to finish the top yet but will post once I have learnt from the experience. It looks though as if it will end up 15/16 from 4/4. We will know when I get time to go back into the shop.

What I managed to do so far, is boards that were bowed across their length and would have lost thickness when face jointing were somewhat straightened during the glue up. Also this is Maple with a lot of cross grain. It looks great, but not easy to plane or joint without tearout, or doing some work on my blade angles. I don't have a wide belt sander and can get around this with hand planes.

In short, doing it the way I chose, will probably take another extra day out of my time schedule. I don't mind, as I love the curls coming from a well tuned hand plane.


----------



## Midlandbob

The best way to preserve thickness in significantly cupped or warped boards is to bite the bullet and rip them into more narrow boards before the first jointing and putting them back together after planing. Keeping track of the order of the boards so the figure is maintained can be done. 
Sometimes if a board is moved a bit along its long dimension before glue up, the cut linewill almost disappear.
Boards with twist or long bend are best cut into as short of pieces as needed before milling.
We hate to waste wood. It's annoying to turn a 4/4 board not a 2/4 board! But we do need drawer sides.


----------



## WillemJM

Completion of the infamous, glue bit, rough sawn table top.:blink:

Finish was Deft Gloss Exteriorl WB Poly, rubbed out with a buffer and 3M compounds/pads in about 40 minutes.


----------



## woodnthings

*that turned out great!*

I may be a glue bit convert myself. I got the Bosch 1/2" shank router bit yesterday. So now the $64.00 question.... how are the ends fastened or are they? They look seamless like they are glued to the length. It's a nice finish and from what you say easy to do as well. :thumbsup: bill


----------



## WillemJM

woodnthings said:


> I may be a glue bit convert myself. I got the Bosch 1/2" shank router bit yesterday. So now the $64.00 question.... how are the ends fastened or are they? They look seamless like they are glued to the length. It's a nice finish and from what you say easy to do as well. :thumbsup: bill


Thx Bill, the breadboard ends are standard design, doweled with three dowels for 2 1/2" center with glue across the 2 1/2". The rest is free floating, doweled with elongated holes in the tongue. Interesting, with the finish the top can move as much as 1/4" across the BB ends in three days, kind of breathing in and out.

The ends look seamless, as I dropped the outfeed table on my jointer a fraction to joint the BB ends, so the are slightly concave, meaning if one pulls the center glued 2 1/2" tight the BB closes the possible gaps at each end.

Next top I do, I will try the normal edge glue using cauls, I have never done that before. A joint bit takes a lot of practice, but once you have it mastered it works real well.


----------



## Brink

WillemJM said:


> The ends look seamless, as I dropped the outfeed table on my jointer a fraction to joint the BB ends, so the are slightly concave, meaning if one pulls the center glued 2 1/2" tight the BB closes the possible gaps at each end.
> 
> .


I was never a big fan of a BB end, because of a possible loose looking fit...that there is an excellent solution.

Beautiful top you made.


----------

