Plywood For Raised Panels

[cabinetman]

This is a technique that you might try which will yield a raised panel without doing a panel glue up, and saving some cost of solid wood.

Using 3/4" hardwood plywood, glue solid stock on all four edges, mitering the corners, and leveling the stock to the panel. The edges can then be profiled.

There are a few advantages to this process. You will have no endgrain to deal with. The width of the solid stock can be varied to allow as much "flat" before the profile. The solid stock can be the same specie, or a different one, which may add to the design character of the panel. The frame can be done like a R&S (cope and stick), or just mitered, and rabbeted. The panel can be glued into a rabbet, or into the groove provided by the bit set. Gluing in the panel will keep the frame together, and make for a very rigid panel, with no "loose panel" or movement issues.

In the fabrication of the commercial bar below, I made the bar front panels this way. I'd like to thank Bruce Cohen for helping me with this picture.
.

.

[LinuxRandal]

Cabinetman, how about a possible disadvantadge?

Can this be used (have you done it), in cabinet doors?


Thanks

[cabinetman]

Cabinetman, how about a possible disadvantadge?

Can this be used (have you done it), in cabinet doors?


Thanks

I prefer to do them this way for doors. They would be lighter. Can't think of any disadvantages, especially since they can be glued in.
.

[drumpriest]

Disadvantages would be trouble getting the ply to take a finish in the same manner as the solid wood, and the fact that they 2 move in different ways, so over time you may have a slight ridge (as it were) at the intersection point.

Still, a good technique overall, thanks for the post Cabinetman

[LinuxRandal]

Disadvantages would be trouble getting the ply to take a finish in the same manner as the solid wood, and the fact that they 2 move in different ways, so over time you may have a slight ridge (as it were) at the intersection point.

Still, a good technique overall, thanks for the post Cabinetman

I was wondering about the movement/glue in issue. But I thought I might like to try that, with two different woods, so the cabinets wouldn't have to match. One more trick for the arsenal, I need to try. Thanks!

[drumpriest]

When I've done edging like that, the movement is small, it's not like it'll rip apart or anything, and sometimes it doesn't seem to move at all. Other times you can feel a small ridge at the intersection.

[chopnhack]

Looks really nice C-Man, but the panels under the bar top look to me to be raised? How was that accomplished with plywood?

[cabinetman]

Disadvantages would be trouble getting the ply to take a finish in the same manner as the solid wood, and the fact that they 2 move in different ways, so over time you may have a slight ridge (as it were) at the intersection point.

Still, a good technique overall, thanks for the post Cabinetman

With a proper and sufficient finish schedule, the solid wood and plywood will finish the same. This holds true for veneering odd plywood with a veneer of the same wood specie.

Example: Suppose you are working with F&P Red Oak doors, and instead of using a glue up of solid Red Oak, you had some Red Oak veneer in stock, but no Red Oak plywood. You might only have some Birch plywood. So, you veneer the Birch ply with the Red Oak veneer, and then edge it with solid red Oak.

Then that panel is profiled on the edge with a cove to "raise it". Then it's glued into a rabbet or the groove from the C&S bit. If finished properly, there should be a uniform finish for the whole door. Many finishing differentials or problems stem from a poor schedule, bad or problematic materials, lack of finishing knowledge, or taking shortcuts. Sometimes it might be just adding that one extra application.

The plywood will have no movement issues, and the profiled edge will likely only be 3/4" thick by 1" + wide. Movement issues with solid wood are only subjective tangentially (across the grain) not with long grain. So, with stock that thin, I don't get any detectable variances. If the mating edges of the plywood and the solid wood are prepped for the glue up, and you use good clamping technique, you end up with a very tight joint. For prepping the edges prior to glue up, swiping with a flat block sander produces a pretty flat surface. The edges can come from a wider board that is jointed one edge and then ripped (for each piece). I find that with either jointing or a glue line rip cut, that final swiping with a block sander makes a difference in the mating edges.

Most of the time the long grain differential is undetectable. For the top and bottom of the panel it's only noticeable because of grain direction, which, IMO, doesn't look objectionable. Done right it just looks like good craftsmanship.

Looks really nice C-Man, but the panels under the bar top look to me to be raised? How was that accomplished with plywood?

They are raised just as a solid wood panel would be. As described above. instead of starting with a solid wood glued up panel, a solid wood edge is glued to a plywood panel. Then the edges are profiled just like you would do with a solid wood panel. Once ready, it is glued into the frame for the panel, which could be just a decorative panel as on the bar front, or a hinged cabinet door.
.

[chopnhack]

That is really a neat way to save lumber. As always you keep teaching us some great money saving and in this case assembly techniques. Keep up the great work C-man!!

[Gator95]

Hmmm.... seems like you could use a vertical raised panel bit and do the 'raised panel' edging first in strips 1"-1.5" wide, thickness equal to ply, as long as you like, then miter it and glue to the center square of plywood as needed. Species match first of course, etc...

If this is easier or not of course depends on personal pref. and how your router table is set up.

[drumpriest]

Well Cabinetman, apparently I just suck at it then, as I've never had red oak plywood take a stain in the same way that solid red oak takes a stain. In fact, 2 different piece of oak may stain differently, depending upon the grain structure. It's a part of why I don't stain things anymore, that and the fact that I'd rather use the wood of an appropriate color/look. I'm sure it is possible to select the exact correct types of grain to be adjacent to minimize any difference, but it doesn't happen by dumb luck. Also many plywoods will take stain differently from one section of factory book matched veneer to the next. Certainly if you do all of your own veneering, it's less of an issue (I do some of mine, but not all).

Furthermore, solid wood moves in all directions, just a very different rates, it moves far more across the face grain of a plain sliced piece of wood, as compared to a quarter sawn, but it does in fact move in the other directions, even though minutely, and I have found that this movement can create a discontinuity that is tactily detectable. You can scrape and sand a piece like this flush to perfection, and finish it well, and to a rub out on the finish, and 6 months later you may notice an ever so subtle transition when you run a finger over it. Plywood also moves, just so minutely as to be considered a stable substrate. In fact, when applying an oil only finish to quarter matched burl veneered pieces, I've noticed very slight ridges at the veneer intersections over time that were not there when the piece left my shop. Though a much heavier lacquer application does seem to mask some of these issues.

My statement about the 2 having a detectable transition over time had nothing at all to do with any glue up technique, not sure if your comment was to address that or not. You are absolutely correct that proper milling techniques are required to make a nice tight glue up.

[cabinetman]

Well Cabinetman, apparently I just suck at it then, as I've never had red oak plywood take a stain in the same way that solid red oak takes a stain. In fact, 2 different piece of oak may stain differently, depending upon the grain structure. It's a part of why I don't stain things anymore, that and the fact that I'd rather use the wood of an appropriate color/look. I'm sure it is possible to select the exact correct types of grain to be adjacent to minimize any difference, but it doesn't happen by dumb luck. Also many plywoods will take stain differently from one section of factory book matched veneer to the next. Certainly if you do all of your own veneering, it's less of an issue (I do some of mine, but not all).

Furthermore, solid wood moves in all directions, just a very different rates, it moves far more across the face grain of a plain sliced piece of wood, as compared to a quarter sawn, but it does in fact move in the other directions, even though minutely, and I have found that this movement can create a discontinuity that is tactily detectable. You can scrape and sand a piece like this flush to perfection, and finish it well, and to a rub out on the finish, and 6 months later you may notice an ever so subtle transition when you run a finger over it. Plywood also moves, just so minutely as to be considered a stable substrate. In fact, when applying an oil only finish to quarter matched burl veneered pieces, I've noticed very slight ridges at the veneer intersections over time that were not there when the piece left my shop. Though a much heavier lacquer application does seem to mask some of these issues.

My statement about the 2 having a detectable transition over time had nothing at all to do with any glue up technique, not sure if your comment was to address that or not. You are absolutely correct that proper milling techniques are required to make a nice tight glue up.

It's not a matter of sucking at it. Sometimes we don't have a choice. You do seem to take a negative approach to procedures, which border on trying to find a problem, instead of dealing with a situation. There is always the possibility of movement issues. The color issue does exist. In describing the finish, that can be one of the indicators of the color issue. If a good and sufficient finish is applied, that will uniformly tie in the look, and by that I'm referring to the final finish, not the color.

I do a selection process for the hardwoods to get the best match to the veneer of the plywood. When doing this step, and arranging the pieces to use, I may condition, or tone up or down the edging to be a better match in color. This entails doing samples of the veneer and the solid wood. Granted, that process can be extensive. The color issue may be more of an issue depending on what you use for a finish.

But, this is woodworking, and we are dealing with natures product. My contract documents with the client has a disclaimer that I have them sign stating that they understand and accept the fact that woods may not all look or appear uniformly the same in color or grain as it is a natural product. If your desire to have it all identically perfect, use Formica, or paint.

The same holds true for slight differentials if they come about between the solid wood and the plywood. Feeling imperfections 6 months later can happen with any joint or transition. So what. The same outcome can be with a R&S, a miter joint, or doing a veneer inlay in a field other veneers. There can be a difference in either color or grain on a R&S situation. I mean really, how perfect does it have to be. It's wood, and maybe those differentials are the beauty of the work. We can only do our best, and as long as there is improvement, we aren't limiting ourselves to what we attempt. A lot of the imperfections can be minimized, but not eliminated. If the fear of what may happen becomes a factor of the work, or one's zest for perfection limits one's ability for successful workmanship, maybe it's not the kind of work that fits the personality.
.

[drumpriest]

I think you are misreading the posts on this discussion, a question was asked about what issues might exist with this technique, and I was addressing that specific question, not just trying to be negative towards your suggestion. To try and say that there are no issues with any technique is being naive, so I was trying to answer LinuxRandel's question of...

"Cabinetman, how about a possible disadvantadge?"

To which you said

"Can't think of any disadvantages"

So I was merely pointing out some potential disadvantages, not saying that the technique is unworthy of use. So I suppose I could put the "you are a negative Nancy" ball back into your court by saying that surely such a question is deserving of an answer, not just denial. There are always downsides to a technique, it is when that they are outweighed by benefits that a technique should be considered. I think the downsides to your technique are very small, for sure, but they do exist.

So, in short, my responses were not to put down your approach, just to give an answer to a question asked.