Australian Cedar Cupboard

[yvan]

We have recently been gifted a plain cupboard made of Australian Cedar. It was used in a school classroom and was "full" of chalk dust when it was acquired at a general auction.

I have no way of dating the piece but would guess it to be 100 - 130 years old. It is certainly not fine cabinetry but the grain in the cedar is most attractive.

I have used a commercial restorative product with 0000 steel wool to remove the gunk from the door frames and panels followed up with a commercial furniture wax of the same brand and 0000 steel wool before applying another coat of wax with a soft cloth. The result is most pleasing as the wood absorbed the wax to reveal a "golden red" shimmer.

I noted with surprise that the timber on the inside of the cupboard has not been finished with anything and is still "raw". Would this explain why most of the door panels are bowed and the doors themselves are warped?

So, the question is: should I now seal the timber? If so, what product would be recommended and what effect would this have on the timber?

All advice will be most gratefully received !!

yvan

[cava]

Nothing to do with the substance of your post. However, I just noticed the correlation of your age and number of posts.

[fletty]

My Grandfather who died many years ago, took it upon himself to teach me the "old ways" of carpentry and plastering. One of his "lessons" involved fitting a new door to the shed and then painting only 1 side. By the next morning, the door had bowed so much that it could not be opened!
As your cabinet is quite old, it was most probably finished with shellac and wax and therefore I would recommend doing the same finish to the inside. The aim is to stabilise the moisture across the thickness of the timber and so it needs an internal finish to match the "porosity" of the external finish.
HOWEVER, it is possible that the original timber has dried to such an extent that that the bowing is now permanent so I would try it on the worst door first.
fletty

[Xanthorrhoeas]

Hi,

I have collected and repaired Australian furniture for about 40 years.

Traditionally, the vast majority of Australian cedar furniture (and that made in other timbers) was not sealed on the inside/under surfaces. Doing so considerably decreases the value of a piece as it is usually regarded as indicative of fakery, i.e. when a piece has been made up from parts of other furniture ("a marriage") or else otherwise drastically modified. An internal "finish" is seen as a witness to such fakery (in the jargon of restorers).

English furniture was often stained or painted with a thin coat of something inside - though that may have been used to disguise the common use of substandard timbers in a carcase. In Australia most cedar pieces were solid cedar - though Tasmanian cabinetmakers often used pine (like European Deal) from packing cases and South Australian and Melbourne makers sometimes used a secondary of Red Pine (Californian Redwood) where it could not be seen.

Australian cedar is an exceptionally stable timber when properly dried. It is very unlikely to change shape after 100 or so years so all that you would achieve is to damage it. When a panel is warped it can sometimes be straightened with wedges if it is framed, but usually the warping and occasional cracks are just regarded as signs of age and accepted as part of the patina.

Hope this helps

David

[soundman]

It is generally considered wise practice to finish both sides of any flat panel with the same finish coat for coat, to minimise warpage.

[Thumbthumper]

It is generally considered wise practice to finish both sides of any flat panel with the same finish coat for coat, to minimise warpage.

I agree, and always do this when building something new.

However, none of the panel doors of the Australian cedar bookcases, food safes, dressers, chiffoniers, etc that I have studied over the years have had any finish applied on the inside.

[soundman]

I agree, and always do this when building something new.

However, none of the panel doors of the Australian cedar bookcases, food safes, dressers, chiffoniers, etc that I have studied over the years have had any finish applied on the inside.

That is because they where cheap trash, that they knocked out as fast as they could.
The Ikea furniture of the day if you like.

cheers

[Xanthorrhoeas]

I have to disagree with you about the quality of Australian antiques Soundman, though, like Thumbthumper, I also finish on both sides for new furniture I make - but never on antiques that I repair.

I have seen some of the most superb and valuable pieces of Australian antique furniture over the years, and have owned quite a few. I am talking about pieces that were the equivalent of the best European furniture - made of solid timbers (cedar and or Huon etc.) then veneered with superbly figured Australian woods (and sometimes also other timbers veneered with exotic woods). Take a look at some of the furniture in Australian Furniture, Pictorial History and Dictionary 1778-1938 by Kevin Fahy and Andrew Simpson (1998) and their earlier book before you describe all Australian antique furniture as "cheap trash". I knew Kevin (unfortunately deceased now) and still know Andrew and I have personally seen a fair sampling of the furniture in their books. Virtually none that I can remember is finished inside or on the undersurfaces. The only exception being a piece of superbly veneered Tasmanian furniture wth a chunk of Deal in the base - it had a wipe-over of some orange stain, like some English furniture does.

Of course there was also plenty of quick and dirty cabinet makers around then, as now, but don't tar it all with their poor quality.

[soundman]

Just because something was made with solid timber ( there was nothing else, till plywood a chipboard came along well into the 20'th century) and just because it is venered ( there was lots of cheap veneered furniture at one time) does not make it quality or best practice.

Just because something is an "antique" or is of a "quality Build", does not make it top shelf or that the maker knew all the best methods or built it with little concern for cost.

Much of the furniture that so many dote over, was nothing more than a functional item at the time and built to a price.

While many have a high opinion of such items now ..... the vast majority of the stuff that will be encountered in this country outside of the major institutions would have come out of the volume furniture stores and mail order houses of the time ...... so little of it ( bugger all) would have been made to order and craftsman built, it would have come out of the repitition factories of the time and there would have been no time wasted on things that where not seen.

I also find it comical when people talk about various timbers as if they where some special or valuable ...... in this country at one time not that long ago....all sorts of timbers where common and treated cheaply.

Rosewood used for fence posts, Silky oak was commonly used for trim and painted because it grain was considered uggly, huon venered over because it was considerd pale, plain and flawed, cedar used for packing crates and the story goes on.

Just because some method we now consider high art and time consuming was used .... it means little ...... all sorts of methods where used because there was little other option ..... dovetails where used because glues where rubbish and nothing else even lasted the trip to the customer on a bullock dray....... joinery likewise ...... when you have a dozen blokes doing it every day complex joinery, veneering and french polishing are trivial.

If ya see something that would today be considered a bit rough ..... that is because a corner was cut and time and money saved ...... hell I have seen a "fancy" french polished table that was rough sawn on the underside except where the joining was done.

In Australia truly, there never was a large volume of truly high end furniture.

Face facts.... in Australia there is very little in the way of european style archiology to dig up, very few top shelf antiques and almost no significant art outside the institutions and the houses of the very rich.

There is however a lot of mass produced trash that people dote over.

cheers

[rustynail]

You fail to mention the fact that large amounts of Cedar were returned to Europe specifically for furniture manufacture. So obviously the Powers That Be at the time were not sharing your sentiments. In fact, all Cedar in the Colony was deemed property of the Crown.
I have always taken a dim view of snobbish attitudes towards our timbers. The lack of knowledge often produces prejudices unjustified.
Yes, we are all well aware of the low standard of uses some of our more noted timbers have been put to over the years, but this does not, in any way, detract from the special qualities that can be forthcoming when placed in the hands of a craftsman.
Did you know that Radiata pine is resistant to Lyctus borer? Who ever would have thought?

[soundman]

There where huge amounts of timber exported from Australia ...... and in the destinations it was highly regarded very expensive.

But here it was being produced is such large volumes it was put to whatever utility use there was, because most of the local population had no use for fancy furniture and no money to pay for it.

This is why you see silky oak and red cedar used for interiour trim in pretty moddest houses and painted over from day one

cheers

[rustynail]

Where and when the timber was plentiful it was often put to general use.
Even today, the general local population has no use for fancy furniture nor the money to pay for it. But, the elite market was there then as it is today. Little has changed.
Furniture tastes have gone through many changes over the years and, like most of history, have a habit of repeating.
Generalization is damaging to history and tends to cloud the picture somewhat.

[Horsecroft88]

Sorry to sink your boat Soundman but I am like, David and Thumbthumper in an opposing camp of thought to you. While certainly relatively cheap timbers like Baltic pine were in general used in domestic architecture (doors, mantles, skirtings, architraves etc) and furniture, cedar while initially used for some architectural purposes was pretty much always treated with respect and highly valued, given its similarity to Mahogany. Furthermore as a rule, it was not painted but instead shellaced (French Polished). It was only later generations that gave it this sort of "modernization" treatment. I am too well aware of this from my own experience in restoring both a very early colonial property (1826) that I previously owed here in Hobart, let alone from my current 1850 home, as well as from my 30 years plus interest in old properties and antiques. As supplies dwindled of NSW and Queensland red cedar due to over harvesting, its use for architectural joinery ceased. In regards to its use in furniture, like Huon Pine (and especially Birds eye) it was always highly prized and from the many high quality pieces of cedar furniture that I have seen over the years, let alone been privileged to own I can assuredly say that for the majority it was well made, superbly detailed and finished. It was nothing like the mass made rubbish furniture of today.

You might like to learn a little more about the history and significance of Australian cedar and the high quality of some of the finest colonial cedar joinery made here in the day. Reference to Dr John Buttworth (one of the foremost experts in Australian cedar, and colonial cedar furniture), book on Colonial Australian cedar furniture would be an excellent starting point to assist you. I have previously bought from Dr Buttworth 4 superb cedar spade back dining chairs (1850s origin) and they cannot be faulted for the excellence of construction and finish.

Getting back to the point, as a rule I too havn't seen early furniture, regardless of the timber used or even which country of origin it comes from with the undersides sealed. As other's have noted, it was normally always left in a raw state. This is equally true for my various cedar bookcases, tables, chairs, chest of drawers, etc just as much as my father's early Georgan Mahogany blind secretare, dining table and chairs, let alone various other cedar antiques he owns.

To suggest that sealing the insides, or underneath would prevent warping or cupping is just nonsense. Preventing exposure to direct and intense sunlight, and or moisture is the key to preventing such damage.

[soundman]

Sorry but claiming that sealing insides and undersides as a prevention of warpage as nonsense ......is just plain rediculous ....... it is now considered best practice. and has been proven time and time again to be effective.

I continue to insist that in the vast majority of insides not being sealed is simply a cost and labour saving issue.

Again ... there may have been some fine colonial joinery ...... but for every piece of fine joinery there will be hundreds of volume produced items.

cheers

[rustynail]

Possessions that we take for granted today were highly valued in the past. Books, woolen and cotton clothing, tea, just to mention a few. In the case of clothes and books, moth was a constant damaging threat. In many areas silverfish were equally damaging. From the earliest times settlers soon realized the insecticidal properties of cedar and used it extensively, if not exclusively, for cabinetry containing these items hence the unfinished interiors and drawers.
To say it was purely a cost and time saving thing is unlikely. After all, to wack a bit of shellac or wax onto the interiors as a sealer would have been no big thing. A bit different today with the cost of finishers and application methods.
All side sealing is far more important today because of the sealers used. Many don't breathe at all.
The less they breathe the more they warp. A non breathing, non penetrating, non nourishing surface finish will give far more issue than a deep perpetrator.
I tend to think there was a method in their madness.