> I don't see that a beading plane would have been viable (no edge to
run it against, it seems to me).

Actually, I have a beading scratch stock that would do the job.  It was
made by an excellent Viet-Namese cabinet maker.  Think of a small, 
narrow
molding plane, except that the scratch blade is set into the stock at
90 degrees.  In use, another board is clamped to the piece to be worked
and used as a fence for the tool.  This fellow made the stock for a 
short
run when he had to duplicate an existing detail.

Otherwise, I see no advantage over a beading plane in producing the 
bead.

> I don't know beads, but from checkering and from binding tooling: if
> the maker ran over just a bit on one corner, the best way of removing
> the mistake would be to run over deliberately on all corners. Make a
> fuck-up a feature.

I don't think this was to cover a mistake, though.  I think it was a
deliberate detail (and not a bad idea).  If, in panel and frame work,
you run the bead on the stock before making the frame, you have the
problem of dealing with the joint where the rail meets the stile.
Nowadays, most of us, I think, would miter the bead, maybe try to
cope the joint. But I've seen English 16th panel and frame construction
that uses a simple butt joint.  The problem of where the beads meet
was rectified by careful chisel work to extend one of the beads.  This
was done in a room that was completely panelled, walls and ceiling.

My take on the piece in question is that the cabinet maker took a little
extra time in dealing with such a butt joint, and finished the corners
with that little detail.

Mike in Sacto