For All The Face Frame Users

[cabinetman]

Have you tried frameless construction?

.

[Pappy]

Face framed cabinets are a bit more work, but I look the looks better than frameless.

[steve-norrell]

Yes, I have tried it. . . .

. . . . and I agree with Pappy, especially with my level of skill.

Regards, Steve.

[jnesmith]

Have you tried frameless construction?

.

Actually, I've never built cabs with face frames. All of mine have always been frameless.

[leehljp]

If frameless is done correctly, I like it and the feel. But I am speaking of drawers. In Japan, in some of the fine work, the drawers fit so perfectly that there is suction and pressure when opening and closing. THAT type of frameless drawers and doors look like works of art, and are.

But for what you are talking about in cabinets alone, generally there is too much gaps for me. Even on what I have seen, it seems to me that getting the product finished was more important than the esthetics and craftsmanship of the unit.

I am getting picky, picky, picky with age.

I took a nearly two dozen pictures of a Japanese dresser that I left behind in Japan (for someone else) that was done frameless. It had drawers and a side door that was frameless and it was air tight and well fitting. Looked great, but it had been promised to someone back there, or I would have brought it home with me.

[cabinetman]

I took a nearly two dozen pictures of a Japanese dresser that I left behind in Japan (for someone else) that was done frameless. It had drawers and a side door that was frameless and it was air tight and well fitting. Looked great, but it had been promised to someone back there, or I would have brought it home with me.

Sounds interesting. Can you post any pictures?

.

[leehljp]

I will see if these upload OK.

This is the same condition that I found it in about 15 years ago. The finish looks terribly scratched and it was but only on the surface. None of the scratches are beyond "finish" deep, and it was like that when I found it.

I always wanted to refinish it but never had time. My daughter was really irritated at me for not bringing it home and I could kick myself for not doing that. It was WELL crafted, strong and surprisingly light weight for its strength. But no fiber type of boards or hollow boards in it. It is missing the sliding doors for the open top above the drawers.

The carcass was made from Japanese elm, the drawers behind the face were a type of fir.

For sizing, see the 24" Starrett square in the second picture in the opening.

Also, notice closely the third picture - of the rounded dovetail corner joints

[cabinetman]

Thanks for the pictures Hank. It's an impressive cabinet. Those hinges are something else. Doesn't look like they have any adjustment capabilities.

.

[RAFlorida]

CabinetMan beat me to the post about

those hinges. They look unique. My Uncle was in Japan back in the 50s and always commented on the quality of the cabinets and drawers being truely tight tolerances. Thanks for sharing your pictures; and I agree with your daughter.

[gsmittle]

I've managed to screw up both framed and frameless cabinets. Good thing they were shop furniture.

g.

[cabinetman]

There weren't any euro hinges when I started building cabinets, and most all were with face frames. There were hinges available back then that were designed for frameless if you desired. They were basically knife type or pivot hinges.

I can't remember the last time that I made a face frame. I only do those if they are required, like to match existing cabinets, or there is some sort of detail added or carved into the face. But, other than exceptional reasons, frameless cabinet construction is faster, less expensive to make, and provides some important features.

Traditionally fabricated, both frameless and face framed cabinetry can be done the same way. Structurally, the carcase (the cabinet box), becomes it's own entity after assembly. Its installation may be a supportive one to others, or become a subject of ones to its side(s).

Sizing the cabinet within realistic parameters will minimize spans that may seem to need further support (the face frame). Sizing sheet goods to maximize material usage will permit making cabinets that don't need a face frame for support. Maintaining a width of less than 32" permits 3 crosscuts or less in a 4x8 sheet (for tops, bottoms, and shelves). This width also permits doors cut from sheet goods to be attained from 3 rips or less in a 4x8 sheet. The sizes created for maximum use are visually pleasing and in good scale.

Material wise you don't need 3/4" stock ripped and prepped to make FF's. There are savings in costs and time saved. For frameless, there still needs to be some application for a leading edge. Solid wood can be used but it can be as thin as 1/8". Or a veneer (solid wood, paper backed, or PSA), or, a heat activated wood tape can be used, which is a very fast method. IMO, it's a durable edge, and easy to apply.

With frameless construction you have flat smooth floors to the cabinets. A face framed cabinet could also have a smooth floor if the bottom rail was installed flush to the floor.

The choices for hinges designed for frameless cabinets are more varied, and can be much more simple. IMO, those hinges are much stronger. You could use just a full overlay hinge, and the overlay can be achieved with the mounting plates. Without having FF stiles, permits an easier access to the sides of the cabinet. Mounting side mount drawer slides is a snap.

If the contention that face frames make better looking cabinets, consider that doors and drawer fronts usually cover most of the front of the cabinet anyway.

If the contention that face frames keep the cabinet square, consider that if a cabinet is squared by the back and glued up square, they stay square. If they go out of square, the joint wasn't done properly.

In thinking of the costs and hassle of installing face frames, consider frameless cabinets can still be configured to be scribed. Alignment during installation is also easier. The use of either method could be a personal one. There's not one method that is "the best". Discussing the differences may bring some light to those that may want to know.

.

[jackellis]

I've only built frameless and only for my shop. They're quick and simple, but quick and simple does not guarantee quality. I used Arauco plywood because it was inexpensive and I was comfortable leaving the edges unbanded. The downside is that it doesn's stay perfectly flat, and that caused all sorts of headaches. I also used rabbet and dado joints, which I did not execute perfectly enough. Next time I'm going to cheat (pocket screws).

[cabinetman]

I've only built frameless and only for my shop. They're quick and simple, but quick and simple does not guarantee quality.

They can be.

I used Arauco plywood because it was inexpensive and I was comfortable leaving the edges unbanded. The downside is that it doesn's stay perfectly flat, and that caused all sorts of headaches.

Using that plywood likely contributed to those problems

I also used rabbet and dado joints, which I did not execute perfectly enough.

Working on improving the joinery would also aid in a better outcome.

Next time I'm going to cheat (pocket screws).

I would stay away from pocket screws. I don't use them and have no problems achieving good joinery. Pocket screws present their own problems. I find traditional joinery with suitable material can offer predictable results.

.

[billwmeyer]

Cabinet Man,

What kind of problems do the pocket screws have? I am about to redo my kitchen in the next few months, and I was planning on using pocket hole screws on the cabinets. I would appreciate knowing your experience with them.

Thanks!

Bill

[cabinetman]

Cabinet Man,

What kind of problems do the pocket screws have? I am about to redo my kitchen in the next few months, and I was planning on using pocket hole screws on the cabinets. I would appreciate knowing your experience with them.

Thanks!

Bill

I was going to list the threads that posed problems, but they are easily searched. First off I don't like the holes left when using them, even if they are plugged. My clients look at their work while under construction, and to them it looks like cheap KD type RTA cabinetry.

Screws get pulled out, tear out edges, or not holding. They don't pull in a straight line, and alignment can get off. I don't like the setup, and using a jig. I can do my fabrication joints in the time or less than it takes using pocket screws. IMO, the use of them cannot compare to the predictability of traditional joinery.

Before there were pocket screws the same type of technique (in principle) was used and still used only when needed called "toe nailing" or "toe screwing". In toe nailing, the finish nail size to be used is altered by cutting off the head and using the nail for drilling a pilot hole for partial depth (to keep the wood from splitting). Then the appropriate finish nail gets inserted and seated with a nail set...a very small hole is left.

For toe screwing, a trim screw with a square drive is used. They are the diameter of about a 8d finishing nail and the head was approximately 3/32". In both cases, the parts get clamped, drilled and fastened...something like pocket screws but much smaller. Ordinarily some of the places where pocket screws would be used, just glue and clamps are more than adequate.

Advanced techniques might take you to blind nailing or blind screwing, which IMO, are still better than using pocket screws.

.