I bought the chalk line from Lee Valley and it seems to have a pretty thin line already. I will compare it next time I'm in the fishing store (Bass Pro Shops near me).

I primarily use square rule, and I only snap lines on timbers that have a pretty good bow to them. Otherwise everything is laid out off the reference face with Big Al. If there is no square reference face then I first swear at the sawyer, then use a framing square to make an imaginary reference edge.

The other Brad: to me, mill rule means no reductions on tenoned members, and typically no (non-structural) housings either. If you don't want to reduce your tenons to a common dimension, you can scribe everything, map them (measure the height/width of every piece, and map them to each joint), or use mill rule, which assumes that every piece that you ordered is exactly as you ordered it. If you're mill ruling a 4x5 girt to a post, then you assume or know that that girt mortise is exactly "5 or 4.75" or whatever.

I like Gabel's point about blurring the lines too.

Tim, is there any evidence of French scribe in your area of Maine? French marriage marks or framing sytles?

Brad

Brad, good question. First, I am sure 2' scribe rule is present.
2nd, I have seen four bent frames laid out with ref. faces toward each other/threshing floor, no 2' scribe marks. Am I correct in saying these are not Fench framing styles? What do French marriage marks look like? I would find it very interesting to discover a French presence in Down East Maine. I would be greatfull for any help in determining such a presence. Tim

I haven't totally figured out thesquare rule thing yet, but on the forum is seems like we've come in a circle. As far as I can tell square rule is the same as mill rule with housings and chalk lines instead of straight edged timbers. I just haven't figured out how you make sure the bottom of the housing is perfect.

For instance lets say that you want a brace centered on a post with a half inch deep housing. Let's say the post is 8x8 rough sawn stock. The tennon is 4 inches, the mortise you will go deeper so the tennon dosen't bottom out. The problem is the side of the brace end with no tennon is supposed to rest flush up against the inside of the housing. The only way I can think of getting a flat surface is by routing it out, which means that your original face would have to be your reference making the housing redundant...

do you follow me??... I'm not sure you should!!

Carlos

So I figure a picture is worth a thousand words!! Here is my housed brace mortise. The 2 bearing surfaces would be the red and the black. It is the red surface that I'm wondering about in the above post.

Carlos, check out page 5, Jim's post #14129.

There are always exceptions to most rules. Here is one. A King post that is flared, wider at the top than the bottom, 11" top - 8" bottom. Now, you have a 6" ridge beam coming into the top of the King, with a brace flush with the ref. face of the ridge. Where the brace lands on the king you will have a mortice like the one you posted. This is where you could use a snap line down the center of the fanned King and place the brace accordingly. To gain the red surface, assuming this is the non ref. face, the more tricky side, no, lets just call it the reference side for simplicity and you are housing it to 1" deep. Bore to 1" deep a series of holes and clean up, or use the router and clean up.

timberwrestler, how about those French marriage marks? Tim

Tim,

Here's some Frenchy style marks...

They look relatively similar to British style marks (I think) until you get to 6,7,8, and 9.
I'm no expert on French framing styles, but I believe that all interior secondary framing pieces (braces, girts, etc.) would be centered. There would be a level mark on every piece, and posts would need some kind of 2' mark (because they are in 2 scribing assemblies), but I don't know where they traditionally fall on the post. There would be no English tying joints or jowled posts. The French also mark their cuts differently using 'x's to mark where not to cut, and 'o's to mark the waste. Maybe some of the Timber Tour de France tourists, or Mo could add something to this.

and Carlos,
I basically never snap lines on square rule (in contrast to Will), as long as the reference edge is straight. And I could be wrong here, but there are no centered mortises in traditional square rule. Cutting a fully housed mortise on a non-reference face on an out of square timber is pretty damn hard. You could make a router jig referenced off the reference face, use a whole bunch of squares to check everything, find a square timber, or just scribe the braces.

Timberwrestler, is right about where you would place a brace pocket in a rough sawn timber frame, and that is on a timber's edge.

Sometime ago, I wanted to be able to do a centered brace pocket on a rough sawn frame and in doing this you have to make sure your pocket is the correct depth.
And this would be measured from the reference face, which would be the opposite side of the timber.
So, I invented a tool and had a machine shop near me make one up. And I have to admit at a great expense.
But this was a prototype:



It is two framing squares bolted together with a slider that holds a combination square metal ruler.

As you have heard of the Big Al layout tool, well this is a Big Jim's double combo.....

And here is how it would be used:



And a closeup:



Basically it would let you measure around a corner and then in.

I was hoping to find a machine shop that could produce these slider attachments and start selling them to timber framers who want to be able to use their combination square ruler with their framing square; without having to use three or more hands.

I have a machinist friend who is suppose to be getting me a price for making up say 10 of these to have on hand and sell.

If you'd like to order one, please let me know and I'll put a fire under his butt and see what's going on. I've been waiting more than a month for the price quote.

Jim Rogers

Jim, here is some matches,$$$$$$$$$. I am always a sucker for a new tool. I would give it a try, if it's not majorly over priced like that land cruser mentioned elsewhere.

timberwrestler, thank you. I have not seen anything like most of those marks. As you mentioned they are simular up to, well, around IIII (4), than the V is upside down and It doesn't pick up again till 10-14 in matching the English numbers, and I am not going beyond that. I have seen them in other literature, just could't place it, but not on timbers. I will keep an eye out. The lower ones look like stick figures? In the book reprint mentioned by Gable, that had some simular marks for keeping track of what was being cut and what was saved. It's interesting that O was the waste. How do we know that, if it was cut out? The X is present on many timbers. That is something I don't do but have often thought I should pick it up. I just thought the O may represent the bore hole, I do that, at times, make silly o's where the mortice is. Most likely it has nothing to do with it. How about eveyone else. Do you but the X at the ends of the mortice? Sorry I may be wondering from the snap line topic. Tim

Hi Tim,

From what book did you extract the French piece numbering tables ?

Regards

Ken Hume