Is my wood beefy enough for a trestle base?

[Denette]

The title question is pretty much it - I'm trying to copy Ishitani's Kigumi table:

Except mine is in Cherry, and is, perhaps, a bit smaller.

My base components are all in the neighborhood of 1¼" thick, and I'm pretty sure that either Ishitani is a very small person, or he used 8/4 for the legs on his table.  I know that sometimes thickness just comes down to taste, so I thought I'd toss this one out here on the forum and see what the general consensus is.  My table, both with and without dimensions, is here:

 

And a preview of the tabletop, which I still have to trim down a little to get rid of the outer live edge bits (I'll do that once they're joined to one another to keep everything straight):

 

 

[Marmotjr]

I'm a little curious as to how that draw bore is supposed to work. 

[Denette]

I'm a little curious as to how that draw bore is supposed to work. 

You mean the tapered dovetail wedge thing on the stretcher? It's basically an open tusked tenon, using the dovetail shape to tighten the joint rather than just a wedge.

 

If you actually mean the drawbored dowels, they are just ordinary drawbored dowels through a bridle joint. Not sure what your question is about if those are what you're talking about.

[Marmotjr]

No the stretcher spanning the legs.  I see now.  Thank you. 

[Eric.]

I wouldn't use anything thinner than 6/4.  1-1/2" to 1-3/4" seems appropriate for that base.

[Brendon_t]

I'm with Eric on this one. I think 6/4 would be the minimum I would start. I would personally feel better starting at 8/4 and working it down until my eye says it's right.  My mind's eye says 1.25" is just a bit thin.

[Denette]

 

Hrmmm. Yeah, I was afraid of that. The real stinker is that I can't really test it narrow and change it if that doesn't look right. I don't like your answers, but I respect them, haha. I just don't want to shell out the dough for more wood, but I'll just deal with it - either by laminating thinner stuff together, or by getting more thick material.

 

 

I don't suppose your answers change when you hear that the top is 1.25" thick, do they?

 

[Eric.]

53 minutes ago, Denette said:

I don't suppose your answers change when you hear that the top is 1.25" thick, do they?

Nope.

You could probably get away with 5/4 for the stretcher...but the legs need to be thicker.  Not as much for structural integrity as aesthetics.  5/4 legs will look way spindly, guaranteed.

[Denette]

Okay, well, here's my idea for a workaround.  I'll leave the top and bottom parts of the trestles 1.25" thick, but beef up the vertical leg by ripping it up the middle and laminating in a piece of maple like so:

 

This would fix the leg thinness and also sidestep the issue of trying to find cherry that matches the tone of the top.  So far I've only used wood from a single tree in this project, so I'd like to try to at least be able to say that all the cherry is from one tree and all the maple is from another.

 

I know that there are varying opinions on mixing wood species, but at least this time I'm suggesting to combine two closed-pore woods instead of oak and cherry like back in March.  I learn, just slowly, haha.

 

EDIT: I could also try to find some cherry that would look good in that spot, I just feel like I'd like to make a project with only wood from the one tree.  I'm still thinking it over.

EDIT AFTER THE EDIT:

Wow, I just realized that I forgot to pretty much say anything specific here.  Whoops.  The new leg thickness would be 1.5", with each outside piece being ⅜" thick and the center maple piece being ¾" thick.  It would assemble like this:

As I think about it, I realize that I could go with cherry instead of maple in the middle, and also that I could go as thick or thin as I want if I do this.  I'd still prefer to have the top and bottom parts of the trestle legs be a single solid piece, but this is a workable solution for the vertical leg, especially since it adds some visual gravity to the leg - it just looks better with a broader base.

All cherry option:

[Brendon_t]

I like the idea of the maple lam into the leg.  I especially like it moving proud  of the Cherry in that example. I'm just not sure how it would look with the top.  In your inspiration picture, the legs aren't a focal point.  In yours, it would be. Just food for thought.

[Eric.]

Yeah it's a coin flip.  Because like Brendon said the maple will draw more attention to the base where I think the top should be the focal point in this particular piece.  On the other hand, laminating all cherry would leave you nothing but glue lines, which would look more like a hodge-podge of parts being spliced together out of desperation rather than an interesting design, where laminating the maple you could get away with it because people would think it was a clever design element instead of you just being cheap.

I see maple dutchmen in your sketchup, which creates continuity throughout the piece...so setting aside the contrasting species debate, at least there's harmony and the design becomes a complete thought.

Ultimately, I'd probably go with the maple version...with the footnote that in a perfect world, I'd personally go with all cherry (from stock of proper thickness) with the exception of contrasting (or preferably - complementing) tusks and dutchmen...but that's just my taste.  It's your table and I think it's a gamble worth taking if you like the look.  Ain't nothin' wrong with cherry and maple.  I built my boy's bed out of those two species, and while it's not my favorite combination ever, I do think it works well...enough.

[SawDustB]

I have to agree with Eric. The maple looks intentional, but laminating the cherry like that will look like a fix. If it was some other species, maybe, but I think you'll just see the glue lines.

[Marmotjr]

I don't know if I love the maple or hate it.   I think the OCD in me wants them stretched out to the top of the chamfers on the feet.  

But the more I look at it, I think I like it.  I'd play with the lines some to see what you get (ahhh the beauty of sketchup).  The dutchmen and the pegs being maple bring a nice balance to it. 

[Tpt life]

I don't like the maple. I don't like light foundation under a dark top. I might rather use walnut or something else with less contrast that pairs well with cherry. At that point, I'd go out and buy more cherry. Just my two. 

[wtnhighlander]

Personally, I find the cherry + maple distracting. If you can't obtain thicker cherry, what about a lamination with mitered-in edges. Tricky to execute cleanly, but if the legs are straight, the glue line will be hidden by the corner. Under the table, it would be really hard to notice.

[Ronn W]

2 hours ago, SawDustB said:

I have to agree with Eric. The maple looks intentional, but laminating the cherry like that will look like a fix. If it was some other species, maybe, but I think you'll just see the glue lines.

How about using cherry but leaving the center proud of the outside lams.  That would be an understated feature that would not detract form the feature top.

[Dknapp34]

Not a fan of the maple. The top has a lot going on already (in a good way). That should be your focal point. A maple skid mark will just detract.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Alan G]

I would stick with all cherry for the legs. The maple will just draw attention to the base. Go get some thicker cherry and stick with the original design.

[gee-dub]

Another vote to stick with cherry.  Almost every mutli-species glue-up to make a single part that I have done, with the exception of a cutting board, disappointed me.  The lamination always looks like an effort to compensate for missing or inadequate material to me.  I just don't care for it, that doesn't make it wrong.  I know folks use this as a design element to get the 'racing stripe' or 'surfboard' effect and more power to them. We all have styles that speak to us or bother us.  The "Gidgit goes to Trestle Table" look just isn't for me but, as my uncle always said 'that's one darn fools opnion' 

[Tpt life]

I said this in your other thread. I don't like the maple. Don't see this as trying to talk you out of it. Just be sure that is what you want.