I can see Chippendale on the house you posted at Fri, Apr 25, 14 at 18:12. But, the photo of your house looks more like the one you posted at Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 19:30. That rendering does not look like an obvious match for Chippendale, to me. I guess it rests on which two renderings are closer to the look your house will have when finished. When do you need to decide? I understand why you see the cable as modern, but to me it is more casual that modern. That said, what i "hear" is that you don't like, so I would not even entertain it anymore. I would ask the architect for alternates or variations on the chippendale, and consider those. How lovely those verandahs will be no matter what! enjoy

OOps, now I'm the one who's behind! Again, thanks for all the helpful comments. It was a last-minute concern so the quick advice has been very helpful. I just finished running the stiles through the router and I'm doing mortise/tenon joints. I hadn't previously heard the tip about glue on butt ends being useless. I had wondered about taping areas I wanted to be clean so the specifics on that are also great. A couple of replies about the wood now. Yes, I guess this project would have been easier had I gone with a standard wood but I bought it from a guy who overbought. It does have a spicey aroma but I haven't seen the "Cabbage Bark" name associated with this stuff. It's not really teak but a common name is Brazillian Teak. It has "Kumaru" stamped on the back of it. I guess the only thing I'm still curious about is gluing only a left side of the panel. Seems like that would still allow the panel to expand in three directions since only one of four sides would be held stationary. Certainly it could be a waste of time and effort but the concept seems ok with what I THINK I understand about wood at this point. I'm really not trying to be difficult, just trying to reconcile new things I'm learning with other things I thought I had learned :>)

Thanks for you responses. Too bad my son didn't think of changing the door out to a window when he had new windows and new siding installed last spring. i just remembered that he actually used that door once. He had bought a new dresser that didn't fit up the bend in the staircase so he had it hoisted up on that roof and got it into the house through that door. I guess he may need that door to get the dresser back out someday if he moves, although he could include it in the sale of the house. He will have to look into the cost of turning it into a window vs installing a railing. Vith, Can those post bases you linked really be sealed well enough to not cause any leaking?

I checked in with a couple of waterproofing specialist subcontractors before finalizing a typical detail for our practice. Our default proposal for guardrail balustrade attachment is fascia mounted. This is also consistent with my recollection of best practices taught in architecture school. While there are certainly special conditions that can modify this advice, the logic is pretty straightforward in most waterproof deck circumstances. 1. A fascia mounted guardrail typically has a larger distance between the bolts that resist overturning. For this reason, the forces on these bolts typically undergo much smaller forces than bolts associated with a floor-mounted installation. 2. Because waterproof decks often have a "drip" at their edge condition; the mounting plate can be substantially sheltered over a long period of time from weathering. When we compare this logic to the floor or "deck"-mounted installation, two things become apparent. 1. The bolts on a floor-mounted installation typically need to be close to the vertical post to avoid being a tripping hazard, which increases the dynamic forces on these attachment points. 2. The upward orientation of a guardrail post could not be worse from an exposure standpoint. The installations are frequently accompanied by standing water where the "wiggling" forces imposed by their use invite water leakage. Both waterproofing contractors I spoke with sounded like this type of poor solution was ruefully a good source of their repair business. Certainly, if posts support a roof at the perimeter of a waterproof deck, surface-mounted guardrails can make sense. The roof's protection aids the waterproof deck, and the posts for the roof can effectively become part of the guardrail assembly and help with its stability. It is worth noting that many homeowners, and even commercial clients, get preliminary pricing for a simple deck and only come by the guardrail cost when required by building codes or provide a builder with more detailed documentation. In my experience, For these reasons, it is a work scope that is often "shoe-horned" into a project budget. It is also the case that, like "options" when buying a car, the options are what cost you. Decking companies and guardrail companies often charge a premium for the guardrail amenity and will provide the deck-mounted option as an "affordable" choice. The fact the guardrail can be mounted to the surface of the area under scrutiny (and not some peripheral fascia board that might not even be in the current scope of work) is often the reason why people jump at this option. It is the most convenient, which is probably the biggest reason I see people do it. I hope this helps.