As far as the 1" left to scribe, this is what got me thinking about the whole 2' mark.

The top of the girts in the white barn are dropped 23" from the post tenon shoulder.

I noticed that 23" was an odd measurement for girt layout and remembered the 1" to scribe to fit...

As I read the excerpt from Shaw:

Third, take out the size of the mortised timber on the end of the square; suppose 10 inches to be the one mortised, then 14 inches remain on the square; make a distinct mark at the end of the square, which is called the 2 feet mark.

Therefore, it sounds like mortises and thus timbers were placed at the 2' mark (at least sometimes). Is the tenon length included in the 2' measurement? Sounds like it is. What "end of the square" is Shaw refering to?

I'm confused. But not deterred

We're getting a little tangential here, talking and hinging so much of this theorizing on second cutting. But perhaps, this is just part of my personal biases against second cutting, I see it as unnecessary, inefficient, and inferior technique. And such opinion should not enter attempts to understand historical technique.

All the same I think the 23” tangent might be the wrong road...

To answer Tim's questions – You don't want the two foot in the area of joinery, or a row of it, because you don't want to take the chance of cutting it or part of it away, it is simply too important. It is occasionally placed at points other than two feet, always to avoid joinery. I remember the thread and its photo and the brace you pointed out, I'm guessing it may have been a recycled post and the mark and it's proximity to that brace may have been happenstance

As I engage in scribe work, it often enters your thinking that this or that circumstance may have influenced why little techniques that were and continue to be common practice came to be so.

I believe Two Foots ( which predate common use of squares by hundreds of years ) are where they are, because it is an area (below the plate and above the braces) where other pieces where seldom joined, allowing for consistent placement of this so important mark.

Could the placement of the girts in this particular barn have been this simple ? How big is the over hang ? Where is the soffit and its bed mould ? Was its seemingly low placement about nailbase for the trim ?

Hi Will,

The overhang/soffit of this barn is quite small: around 6". The roof pitch is also not that steep ~ guessing an 8/12 maximum. Probably not in keeping w/ the girt placement.

What you say about locating the 2' mark away from other joints to preserve their integrity makes sense and is helpful.

As far as looking for other 2' mark evidence, what about the interior posts? These are visible on all sides. As they are also tenoned into the tie beams, there may be 2' marks to see on these.

??

I don't see that by cutting a mortice will remove the 2' mark, it will just be the end of the mortice, our joinery should be accurate enough to do that. Am I missing something? The scratch line is still present on either side as well, in old scribe work. I sometimes pull right off the mortice for layout, depending on the process I am involved in. Just raising question, to know what I don't know.

Tim

That's a good point, Tim.

(many good points going on here!)


The scratch marks will remain firmly in the original location regardless of an over-cut mortise.


Will, as far as your soffit question, I think the flying plates supporting the roof boards at the eaves (4x4s in this case), help to determine the boxing of the soffit area.

Tim - Think of how the layup is layered and how the Two Foots would've been created, either bringing them up from the lofting floor, ( I contend that such floors - brick pavers topped with a lime plaster - were much more common than is realized, scribe with a floor and without one, the increase / decrease in efficiency is multifold, read framers and bridgewrights ledgers and records of how fast they could punch out a frame and it drives home that there are shortcuts and tricks of the trade that are still lost to us ) or creating them on the extreme end pieces in the layup and snapping a line, to which you then bring the awl and the dividers or a race knife to create the mark. A row of girts is simply an obstacle to be avoided. I've seen enough of your work here on the forum to know you should be a scribe-o-centric shop, it just plain fits your approach to the work. I'd like to help with that.

Don - Arcade posts go into but one layup, there is no need for a two foot.

Thanks, Will.

I suppose we can now conclude that the top of these girts at 23" (and the lower edge of the girts in the other barn at 24") have some other reason for their placement than the 2' mark.

Girt placement is just another detail to compare when visiting these frames. It will be interesting to see if a pattern develops. I have been in 7-8 of these frames so far, all but one has been scribed.

As to the reasons for building this way (w/ no plates), one thought is it may have been employed to avoid hewing an elaborate jowled post. All the posts I've encountered so far are square throughout--no taper, etc. Many of these barns date to the early 1800s when jowling was still common.

Of course access to long plate stock is another theory behind these frames. but these do have long stock just the same. The longest members in these buildings seem to be the tie beams. 40' continuous ties are typical. Have yet to find a scarfed tie in any of these frames.

Maybe these frames were easier to raise? No need to hoist a large wall plate, etc. Very modular style...

Who knows?

Again, if anyone out there has seen this type of construction, please let us know. (A call to the TTRAGers!)

I'll post more regarding braces in these frames soon.

Don, recall back to your experience at hewing......a flared/fantailed post would be easier to create due to less wood needing to be removed. I like working with fantailed post and the English tying joint, the flare helps me with remembering which side is what, top, bottom and the total air castle. They were typical made from the butt log and that left the less tapered top section to be used for small dimension stock such as purling or girts.

Will, I don't get out enough, I am working on that, this coming November just before the conference I will be attending the daisy wheel work shop. My first start/experience was with Fox Maple and every year that has passed I have wandered away from that experience developing my own approach to framing, with a mix of this and that. The info here on the forum is some of the mix or tools I am picking up, you and the others contribute greatly, I am in a constant state of learning. Just your last post turns on new lights, that is helpful in its self.

Tim

Hey Tim,

Yeah, I know. You're right: a jowled post might require less hewing... Still a big cross-section even w/ using a butt-end log. The butt tapers in all directions.

What I should have said in more detail was hewing is only part of the prep in a jowled post. Some of these look pretty elobrate-- can have two tenons: one for plate, another for tie beam, etc. Scribing all those connections is a whole other layer of work. The top of a CG post has but one tenon/joint to contend with.

Also, finding enough suitable but-end logs to hew may not have always been practical. ...like I said, who knows?

..............

But you lucky Dog! Signing up for the daisy wheel workshop! That's great. I would love this opportunity, but I doubt I'll be able to scrape up the wherewithall of class, lodging and tools. And w/ only 18 slots, it'll likely fill before I can manage it.

Glad to hear an active forum member like yourself is going. Be sure to probe Laurie Smith w/ questions about fractals and black holes

We will all bring our fractals and black holes, with us, I don't expect much conversation about them, we'll see.

Almost every tree has a flared butt, no lack there. The CG does appear to be simpler to construct, with less joinery, in the eve area. I find one of the difficult areas in a bent wall raising is the connections between bents. I like raising walls first. Really, I like mixing things up.

Tim