page 3 of 4

Wide is good

To me, there's no contest - wide boards are best. Yet a certain attitude persists: Wide boards are unstable. This myth, passed on from one woodworker to another, is overdue for debunking. I have been building furniture with wide boards - one-piece sides for cases, tops for tables, etc. - for years, and I have examined many period pieces and have seen far fewer problems with single, wide boards than with glued-up panels. Yet over and over I hear woodworkers say that gluing up narrow boards to form a wide panel is more prudent than using wide stock. I understand the theory behind reversing the growth rings to avoid warping in a glued-up panel, and it is valid for joining narrow boards cut from small logs. But wide boards come from big trees, and they are typically cut close to the center of the log, where the grain orientation is typically rift or quartersawn - the most stable lumber in the log. When you consider the beauty of the grain or figure moving across a single, wide board and compare it to the potential disharmony of mismatched boards, it isn't really worth debating. Wide material may not always be available or practical, but for it to be shunned as unreliable just doesn't make sense. Obtaining the best-quality matches and sizes of lumber often requires extra effort. AS much as possible, I have logs sawn to my specifications. Although that's not possible for most woodworkers, it's advantageous to know that the closer you get to the saw, the more you'll know about your wood. I tend to have logs sawn against convention; mills typically saw for clear lumber without regard to width; they constantly turn the log to find a clear face. In general, this results in long, narrow boards with fewer knots and defects. Yet I would estimate that most boards use in furniture are 4 feet long or less, so for furniture makers, wide boards with some problems that can be worked around are more valuable than narrow, clear boards.