I’m glad to find that contemporary woodworking editors are merely upholding an at least century-old tradition of cutlists/parts lists containing errors. (And – dare I say – readers haven’t changed much either!) The Woodworker and Art Metal Woodworker, June 15, 1905 (again, thanks to Buz Buzkirk for the old compilations!).
— Fitz
Listen beautiful relax classics on our Youtube channel.
A Tool Cupboard in the April 1902 issue.
Dear Sir, – I send herewith [a] photo of [the] tool cupboard made from the design published in The Woodworker, April 1902. This style of cupboard suits my requirements very well indeed, with a few alterations. I have made mine 30 ins. wide, not having room for a wider one. By placing the saws on the left-hand door, the upright division can come more forward, thereby increasing the width of the shelf, and the straight narrow division between the planes allows a little more shelf space in front, as per Fig. 1. By this arrangement the tool racks come above and below the shelf, so that it is only necessary to allow 1-1/8 ins. instead of 2 ins. for the room taken up by the hammer handle and saw handles. In fixing the saws by a turn-button which fits close down on the handle, it does away with the lower part across the blade; also the tool racks on brackets make a strong neat job, although entailing more work. As you will see I have put the nosing round the bottom as well as the top. Is there any reason why this has been omitted? It seems to me rather an advantage, as it allows the doors to swing clear of any obstruction.
In the list of wood required, given at the end of the article in [the] April, 1902, issue, the three drawer bottoms and one door panel have not been counted, making in all about 7 ft. more of wood required.
Referring again to the photo, just above the top drawer is a specimen of the puzzle dovetail joint given in The Woodworker, May, 1902, made in birch and black walnut.
– Yours faithfully,
George E. Evans.
Source: lostartpress.com