I have a historical question.

Through my research and visits to old barns here in Maine, I notice most have long continuous plates tying the bents together. But a couple real oldies are missing the top plates and instead have sectioned girts tying the bents together...no top plates. At the eaves, vertical wall sheathing runs beyond the top girts to hit the roof boards.

Is this system of bent construction an old english carryover or just a different method? Perhaps the barns with long, continuous top plates were assembled differently. That is, the long walls were made as "bents" with crossties tying them together. ??

I have a photo but don't know how to post one here...

Don

Lots of post here about how to post a picture. Try doing a simple search for instructions.

I'd like to see the photo.

If you can't post it email it to me and I'll post it for you.

Hi Don,

What dates do you have for your oldie barns and where are they located ?

I echo Jim's request to see some pics of your finds.

You might find it worthwhile to browse the pages of "Discovering Timber-Framed Buildings" by Richard Harris where the English system of framing (long walls and cross frames) is explained.

Though one can generalise there are always exceptions to the rule to be found and I can think of at least one early (1390's)building in Farnham, Surrey, England that exhibits interrupted wall plates but this building is surrounded by many others that have continuous wall plates.

Specific problems will demand exceptional design solutions but that exception does not make it a rule.

Regards

Ken Hume

Here is the picture:



First of all, your comments in the email to me with the picture says the rafter sits on a post.
I'm sorry but the rafter sits on a tie beam, over a post. There is quite a difference.
What really peaked my interest was the fact that you said a rafter sat on a post.
In colonial America there were no rafters sitting on posts, at least none that I've ever heard of.
Rafters either sat on plates, as in common rafter roof systems or rafters sat on ties such as this.

This tie and rafter combination may make the roof assembly a truss. It's hard to tell without further pictures.

It is possible that the walls were raised and then the ties were lowered onto the posts, and then the rafters set into the tie. Or with gin poles it may have been raised as a truss and set on whole. It's hard to tell without further pictures or details.

Jim Rogers

Ken,

The barns are from the 1790-1820 era, and are located in Gray, Maine (20 minutes north of Portland). The rafters sit directly atop the crossties, which are directly over the posts.

It really is odd for this area. Their age leads me to think it's an old english carry-over... You know, the forests of England couldn't supply really long timbers for continuous plates. These barns here in Gray are 50 and 60 feet long. Perhaps these builders were more familiar w/ an older method??

I'll email you pictures directly.

Jim. Thanks for posting the photo. Your prowess at the forum is far greater than mine.

Sorry for the mistake. Yes the tie bears the rafter directly.

So I take it this method is a bit out of the norm, ay? I'm curious because I've been to over 20 barns here in the area and only 3 have this method of bent construction. All others have long top plates regardless of rafter system. In your opinion, is it an old english carry-over, or just different?

Hi Don,

Thank you for the digi pics that you sent direct to me but it seems that Jim's post above made this unnecessary.

I note in the top picture that this shows a post with circular saw conversion marks and according to Keith Wilbur's - Home Building and Woodworking in Colonial America - this method of conversion did not appear until 1840 so your date range might be a bit early or alternatively this might be a replacement post.

Don't get too hung up on England being short on long timber. Even if long timbers were available it would be more than likely that scarfed ties would be employed to help ensure good alignment and facilitate phased construction.

This form of debased timber frame design is a simplified building method when compared with earlier continuous (including scarfed) top plate wall frames and as such is likely to be later in date than the continuous plate barns that you have encountered.

Jim,

The Farnham example given above has the post intersecting directly into the underside of the principal rafter and it was for this reason that the wall plates were interrupted. This is rather a special design feature and tends to be found where large arch braces connect the posts to pricipal rafter and then principal rafter to collar to form an open arch frame. If its on interest I can post a photo.

Regards

Ken Hume

Hi All;

Don, I would like to see your photos. The photo Jim R. posted is what I expected to see. I have been thinking these were a later style, not necessarily imported from England. I have a 38x50 barn like this in storage which was built using parts of an older barn near Farmington, ME. I do not think it is an unusual style. They are gable entry barns, correct?

Ken, I agree circular sawn materials indicate a later date. Here in Waldoboro I am trying to narrow down the date of circular sawn material by finding buildings of known dates and looking at there materials. Near as I can tell cercular saws were first used for smaller materials like lath and edging boards and planks starting in the early 1870s. Timbers sawn on a circular saw here start appearing in the 1880s. Another example of when a particular technology was introduced in Waldoboro is that hand made nails were still being used in 1814. Most experts will tell you that a building which has hand made nails is 18th century...not necessarily.

I have not been in nearly as many barns as I would like, but what I have seen is a wide variation in framing styles in Maine; some of which I believe have not been given names or been recorded. In comparison to natural history where you have to dive in a cave to discover new species, unrecorded framing joints and framing typologies are in our own back yards. The field of historic carpentryology is still quite young!

Don, one of my goals in life is to identify historic framing styles and there distribution throughout Maine...Let's talk.

Jim Derby, barnologist

Ken:

Thank you.

And the saw-marked post is a replacement. The barn is circa 1820 tops. I thought I'd hear from folks about this sawn post. (It's hard to find a section to photograph of a barn full of stuff!) But 80 percent of the barn is indeed hand-hewn. The sheathing displays straight, vertical saw marks.

I had a hard time understanding your paragraph: This form of debased timber frame design is a simplified building method when compared with earlier continuous (including scarfed) top plate wall frames and as such is likely to be later in date than the continuous plate barns that you have encountered.

Are you saying the barn I'm asking about is later in date than continuous plate barns? Sorry, I'm not clear on what you mean by "debased."

This barn has me asking about bent construction. Specifically, the origins of this "sectioned-girt" style, or lack of a traditional continuous top plate.

Don

Hey Jim...

I'd love to talk. The circular sawn post is a replacement. I only have seen this style of bent construction on the older barns here in Southern Maine. Early early 1800s. Gray/New Gloucester is where I've been doing my detective work. I write a series on old barns for a local paper there. Very much settled by the English.

I judt thought this style was from a lck of long timber in England, i.e. an "English carry-over."

I suppose this might be a heretical notion but perhaps you could also consider that some frames could be raised piece by piece, especially frames secured by post to sill braces and complicated tying joints.

Hi Don,

The move away from the construction of complete wall frames and complete cross frames (bents) would appear to be a simplification of the long established timber framing tradition where continuous wall plates were employed.

It is somewhat akin to todays move towards adopting modularisation and as such it represents a simplification or debasing of the earlier and more precise building method and traditions. The interrupted wall plate is certainly not in wide spread evidence in England though that is not to say that it does not exist hence in general I do not think that this style of framing has English roots but much more likely to be a product of Yankee inventiveness.

Your topic and items raised therein are of major importance in helping to determine and understand the evolutionary pattern of framing styles employed in New England.

Hard evidence for the date ranges that you suggest would be important in order to establish stylistic precedence in this region.

Regards

Ken Hume

Is it possible to get more pictures posted? That photo is deceiving. How about a shot of the roof system. I would of thought the early settlers addapted quickly to the long stock avaliable. It is a interesting type of building, not common here in Down East Maine. Most of the buildings I see have long plates. Where are the braces? I am wondering if there is a mix of stock, a recycled building, if you will. I see much of that here which makes it tricky in dating. I like going into a building and finding things which make sense. Roughly half of the old building I see are a hodge-podge. I am curious if this is what is seen through the other parts of Maine, or is it something connected to the poorer parts of the state.

Barnology...is that in the Dictionary? Tim

I've posted what photos I have.

there are 2 of these barns, both in the same town in southern maine (Gray). One is a poor man's or working man's barn, the other is from an original well-to-do family (brick house). Instead of long plates, both have a "sectioned girt" system tying the bents together.... and both are old for the area. Early 1800s. Dispite the replacement sawn post in the photo, both frames are hand hewn w/ vertical boarding... both have purlin roof systems. This part of Maine was settled almost exclusively by the English. But as Ken stated, this style of bent connection seems to be unusual for England.

I guess it's still a mystery. These barns are unusual for the area. Most have continuous top plates

Wow, a true mystery. Cool. Call in the experts!

here are the pics that I have:

http://s286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/

Ken:

Thanks for your input. I was intriqued upon finding these barns. This forum is just what I was looking for, and how great that you are from England. I suspected this style to be English, but you say it is likley not...

As far as evidence on date range, what do you suggest? I could revisit... perhaps pull a nail to see if it is forged or cut.. or research deeds. I assume barns are often not listed on deeds.

I do want to help define Yankee building practices here, as you suggest.

Any other folks out there who have seen this style of bent construction... that is, w/ no continuous top plate?

click here for photos:
http://s286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/

thanks to all:

Don

Hi Don,

A subgroup within the TFG is the TTRAG - Traditional Timber Frame Research and Advisory Group.

Check out http://tfguild.org/ttrag.html

This group undertakes building surveys and maintains an archive of their findings. It would seem therefore that this might be your logical start point to help determine what other "hard" information has already been collected re New England barn design. Will Beemer and / or Rudi Christian should be able to help you in this quest.

Will,

Does this archive really exist and if yes, how does a person gain access to same ? Is there a list of surveyed buildings that can be posted on the website ? Can reports be downloaded ? How does a person add a report to the archive ?

Regards

Ken Hume

Will B., I would second Kens last post.

Don, thanks for the additional pictures. Nice 3/4 views, and you went beyond the windshield survey and got permission to look inside. I have never been told "no" as I bumble my way through an introdction and a request to "look at the old barn." Some times they almost seem flattered. Some go along and others don't. I am always let down when no one is home and I have to come back later. At that point I just do a windshield survey. At the last TTRAG meet, Doug Reed pointed out when dating a building to gain many dates and catalog them, than see what date is more prevalent, this is for an unknown building. Nails are only one factor, hardware is good, and there is online cataloges for that research. Tim

Hi Tim,

You make mention of catalogues for hardware & nails. Can you provide a web address to help with that research ?

My friend in Australia (who has a Masters Degree in Timber Building Conservation) is currently compiling a definitive work on nails and their use in building. Being located in a relatively "new" country, he frequently makes reference to items manufactured in England and East Coast USA that were exported to Australia. This research is particularly helpful in providing timelines when examining buildings from the period 1830 onwards. He also has samples of hand made nails from as early as the 1300's and later but it would appear that it was not until the early / mid 1800's that manufactured items became more prevalent in building and so this type of information might well assist in helping to date both New and Olde England's building heritage.

Regards

Ken Hume

One of the oldest nail making companies, which is still in business, here in Massachusetts, is Tremont Nail Company.
They sell a history of nails display that shows how nails evolved over the years.
Here is a link to the page:
http://www.tremontnail.com/accessories-index.htm

Their history page is good too....

Jim Rogers

Thank you all for the the info. This forum is really a great find.

Ken, Thanks for the TTRAG link. I should try to join this as my research progresses.

Jim, I will definatley investigate Tremont Nail. Nice.

Tim, inside is always more fun, if you know what I mean.

Well guess what Gents? I was out scouring today and found another one of these barns w/ no continuous top plate!!!!! And it's in the same town as the others!!

This one is from a later date...1880s, they tell me. All sawn timbers. That's a switch and adds to the drama.

Where are the comments from other folks who have seen this style??? Does it only exist here?

Don

Ken, I can not. I am such a dub when it comes to this stuff. I can just make it here. I think Housewright might? Jim, are you out there? Ken, I did order one of the 5 books on your list, Have not received it yet. I only looked through it on the table at TTRAG. There is 2 more I would like,#2&#3, but cash is low at this time. Tim

This frame typology (connecting girt frames) is ubiquitous to Most of NH and much of Maine -

The only mystery is how it was that English Tieing was abandoned (after two hundred years as the dominant system) and seemingly almost overnight, (I've been in but one frame I would call transitional - haveing both jowled posts and CG's) a totally new frameing scheme was in use over a relativly wide area. The only detail to survive the transition seems to be common purlins (in use from the end of the first period on ) and the two systems seem to share the same relative borders as to use and geographical dominance (Tim you and I discussed this at TTRAG) I'd love to hear from anyone who knows of such bldg's outside the area or see a discussion open up as to exactly where the lines of demarkation exactly lie.

This transition seems to have happened in the 1820's and was perhaps driven by a shrinking availability of long timber (the agrarian society having by this point largly denuded the region) Or maybe Square Rule it'self may have been a driving factor, (could the concept of the production of universal pieces have driven a change towards a framing scheme which has many more universal pieces ?) it also seemingly coming into full dominance in the same decade (I have never seen a scribed CG bldg) the answer is probably unknowable, though fun to wonder about.

Conversion and milling aren't necessarily reliable ways to determine probable building dates - The term Yankee Frugality was well earned and millers were and are by nature good at repair and keeping things running - a few up & down mills were known to still be running up through the 1950's

As a for instance as to how conversion can seem out of time - I was involved in the restoration of a CG barn a few years back, which town records showed to have been built in 1826 - every stick in it but the 5 X 5 horizontal nailers and the 3 X 5 braces was beautifully hewn (this in a town with multiple rivers and which had a number of sawmills and in which hewn members in other frames are usually limited to long plates and ties) the sawn pieces were from an up & down mill, but the braces were mass produced on some kind of dual bladed table saw - which simultaneously cut both sides of the tenon - both the shoulder side cheeks and the slight barefaced side reductions - This barely a decade after the invention of the circular saw and the advent of the "overnight success" of Square Rule - It was as if someone was choosing to use contradictory methodologies to goof on future timber geeks.

Hi Will,

Excellent discourse. I wish I could join you all on the TTRAG visits.

The answer about the conversion of timbers by hewing rather than sawing might lie in the saw power consumption i.e. maybe the local saws could handle up to 5 x 5 timbers but would have struggled beyond this size.

Northern Hewer,

Can you advise us with your experience of the Mulay saw as to what dimensions this type of water powered vertical reciprocating saw could process please.

Will T.,

Can you answer the question about the archives or is this a closely guarded secret ?

Regards

Ken Hume

The conspirator in me thinks...closely guarded secret. Xxx

I've seen plenty of full sized timber milled on an up & down - it is the norm - as is hewing being limited to long sticks - Mills were often some of the first buildings built in any town...

I think in this case it was simply that hewing tiny stock that won't hold still, is a bummer.

Can't answer the archive question - I'm not a made member. but as I understand it the surveys have not been digitized. I'm guessing, but there is probably not enough of them to show any emerging pattern - and there are huge regional variations in framing, usually driven by settlement pattern.

Out of the blue comes someone else who has seen this type of construction as a common practice. Thank you Mr. Truax.

I thought it had something to do with shortage of long timber. And Mr. Hume had mentioned that this "connected girt" (CG as Truax calls it), as a step toward modularization... All good information and entirely sensible.

Thank you for shedding light on my little conundrum. Yet it seems there is still plenty of mystery in regards to square/scribed rule and methods/dates of milled lumber, etc.

Incidentally, there is a sash-saw mill (up and down) not far from here that operated till 1969. Folks are trying to restore it, even replacing the dam in the river so they can have waterpower again... but folks are not about to let them dam the river and harm fish populations. It's a battle at the moment.

Again, thank you Truax and Ken, and all of you, for your help here. The forum is a great resource. I'm glad to have found it.

Don

In Loudon, NH, is a sawmill that is being restored.
TTRAG had a tour of the site once.

Here is a link to the site:

http://smf.websterridge.com/

And lots more pictures here:

http://www.pbase.com/ejohnw/sanborn_mills_farm

Jim Rogers

Mr. Truax,

Do you know if this "CG" style caught on in other areas of the US, or is it a New England thing? And would/do timber framers construct in this manner today?

I believe Ken Hume said it is not widespread there in his country, which is where I guessed it'd first started (because of shorter timbers, etc). Do you think it began here in New England?

Don

Hi everyone:

Just located this thread and after reading evey entry it seems that on has opened up a little mystery.

I have did much investigation in my time --in my area of the world, and I thoroughly agree that no one item will determine age.

Age is very hard to determine when it comes to building styles,
In my area (settled about 1784, by UEL's from the New England States) The original buildings were quite crude, and used only vertical sawn lumber to clad buildings, and sparingly!

There was quite an overlapping of the use of vertical sawn lumber and circular sawn lumber used on buildings. What I did was to determine at what time the first circular saw mill was located in an area, from the census records, and went from there.

before I leave sawing remember that both mills worked side by side for quite anumber of years, in the case of the 1846 MUlEY MIll at Upper Canada Village it was still operating into the 1900's when it finally gave away to technology and the circular saw. Another factor was the power source to drive the circular blades up to and keeping them at 7 to 800 revolutions under a load. Steam was required for that in our area the first steam saw mill within a driving distance of a particular building that needs dating was quite a factor.

Now nails were another factor, we have catalogues listing cut nails for sale years before they arrived in upper Canada, and even then if one could not afford them the black smith kept hammering out forged nails. There again nails could not be used to give close dating just rough dates.

If you ran acros a building exhibitng Hewn material along with vertical sawn lumber, hewn braces and hand made nails, you had a good find and probably could date it around here to 1784 and be close

The same type building with all timbers hewn, vertical sawn boarding, and cut nails, a bit later say 1840 or so,

The same type building with hewn plates and sawn short posts and cut nails a bit later yet about 1880.

Circular saws did not arrive here until noted in the first census in 1867, and then just a sprinkling, many (hundreds) of vertical saw mills were still in operation then.

From my research Circular saws were invented in England about 1800--maybe ken you could comment on this

All buildings that I surveyed in this area had the long plates I never witnessed any like the ones that Don seems to have uncovered, what a great find.

I could go on butI need to get going nice thread thanks don for sharing and all for jumping in-dating building is great fun and I thoroughly enjoyed my years in that role at UCV, and I wish that I had the imput from you all when I was piking around.

NH

Hi NH et all,

My good friend Chris How MSc. from Victoria, Australia sent me the following email extract this week which rather nicely helps put circular saw dating criteria into perspective -

"Thanks for the news Ken, and the reference from the Timber Framers Guild. The US probably mimics Australian experience with respect to having constantly moving frontiers. There is a claim by the Shakers in America that Sister Tabitha Babbitt invented the circular saw in 1810 at Harvard. The first British Patent was in 1777 by Samuel Miller in Southampton and it was perfected by Sir Marc Brunel and Bentham for use in Portsmouth Dockyard in 1809, however it is believed that Robert Hooke invented a small circular saw for the manufacture of scientific instruments in the 1670s.

The real problem was one of portable power, which was not solved till the advent of steam engines in 1805, but these were not widely available until the 1840s. In Australia, the ideas were known but there were no roads & very little infrastructure, so the engines that were imported came in by sea to places like Port Fairy, where they could be lifted onto a wharf. Last week I measured an 1849 Port Fairy cottage floor joist which had been conversted using a 2 feet dia circ saw. Table 4 on p46 of my dissertation is not as conclusive as I had previously thought, but that more powerful engines could drive larger dia blades, however these could not be moved far. The 16 inch blades that I previously found must have still been in use for some time after, and like the item says, used for making laths & battens. You may be interested to note that Scotsmen were the most advanced or far sighted in respect of employing portable engines here in Victoria. Labour was difficult & expensive up to the 1880 depression. Roger Champion (Weald & Downland museum carpenter - now retired) told me that pit sawing was still practiced in Sussex in 1930, & this practice is also mentioned in "The Village Carpenter" of course. So to get early circ saws marks you need expensive labour and good infrastructure. It varies obviously from place to place in Australia and so there may be no hard and fast rule."

The Australian experience might not be exactly the same as New England but Chris raises many good points especially with respect to Power / saw blade diameter / infrastructure / and rather surprisingly Scotsmen of which I am one ! Having been brought up and attended university in Glasgow near the birth place of the modern steam engine I am not surprised by Chris How's proposal that the link between that country and New England building practice might lie more with timber conversion related issues.

This forum thread has demonstrated the value of taking advantage of international joined up thinking to help solve local problems.

Regards

Ken Hume

Hi everyone on this most interesting topic

The only thing that I can add here is that we tend to forget about water turbines many of which were about 45 horse power and could be driven with an 8 foot head of water. The horsepower increased with the head of water depth, but generally speaking the 8 foot head was a good rule of thumb, and was easily obtainable in this area, on side creeks entering the St Lawrence river water shed. These turbines started to appear about 1850 in this area and improvements were rapidly put in place.

They were pretty well located as a stationary power plant, not portable so to speak as a steam engine was

There was ample power here to drive a circular saw of say 5 to 6 foot diameter at a decent cutting speed. this speed of course was dependant on the size of the log being cut.

In my book it was hard to beat the steady power of water or steam, water being the cheapest of the two when available.

In mills the speed was steadied by the use of large flywheels that stored and delivered power as needed, acting like a governor so to speak.

Thanks Ken for helping this subject along.

NH

Don -

Connecting Girt framing did begin here in New England, Northern NE at that. And as I alluded to upthread, such framing seems to have been pretty much limited to Maine & NH, though I can not say for certain how common it might be represented on the west bank of the Conneticutt. I do know that the southern extent of the regional dominance it holds, stops almost dead on, the Mass/NH line. (I came up in a Merrimack Valley border town) Paradoxically, this seems to be the same range of geographic dominance in which, can be found, common purlins.

Neither stytem of framing seems to historically have spread beyond this regional range. I have long tried to research first, what influence/s drove to dominance common pulin roof systems (assuming some regional variation in Olde England played in - this seems not to be the case) And then, what might have influenced a region wide "paridigm" shift in framing. The change was abrupt, like the flipping of a switch, and I know of no other like it (I have been in but one building I would call transitional - having both jowled posts and CG's - and at the same time having seen numerous iterations of "transitional" stick buildings) The only other such related and rapid shift, I know of, was the one abandoning scribe and accepting Square Rule, though in its case the shift was not region bound, but continental in scope, but every bit as rapid. I know of no other area where the plate system was abandoned.

To answer your followup - Almost ironically, Yes, current framers work with these systems today. This largly due to authors from and influenced by this home region, having penned well read books which went on to heavily influence the timber framing revival.

And to speak to the sawmill side of this thread - Frames with the amount of hewing I describe above, are in my expierience, something of a rarity, NE seemingly blessed with good water (Horsepower producing head) saw the building of mills from early on, at least match, or (with intent) better the rate of the spread of settlement - The well heeled and connected granted the best mill sites -

This book/link suggests just how early -

http://books.google.com/books?id=MxILAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq

From a carpenters point of view, this variation of square rule, with connecting girts and common purlins, seems to further simplify the prefabrication process, which appears to be one of the primary criteria of square rule as opposed to scribe rule. (I am assuming that the common purlins are tenoned into the principal rafters of the trusses, and are flush with the top surface of the rafters.)
The design of the structure is now a series of regularly spaced bents. All the connecting girts and purlins are a common length.
This simplifies the cutting list and the actual cutting. There are now no long timbers to procure, or scarf joints to cut,just a large stack of equal length girts and purlins with tenons at both ends.
When it comes to rearing, it is simply start at one end and stop at the other, temporarily propping the first and second bents and then fitting the connecting girts and purlins. The next bent is simply repition of this procedure.
This variation can be viewed as reducing the design to a simpler modular format, that is still in use today in, using steelwork or reinforced concrete sections rather than timber.
It is fascinating and illuminating that this secondary leap of conciousness took place within a decade or two of square rule first emerging as a "new" framing system. It could be interpreted that once the scribe rulebook had been torn up that all elements of design were under re-evaluation.
These original designers/carpenters should be celebrated for their contribution to the evolution to the craft.

Sussexoak, I would assume the purlins would be drop-in or by by-pass purlins. Where the wall girts would of been tenoned. As a builder I cringe at the thought of having that many tenons to line up with the next bent coming on. You guys with these CG buildings in your area, what about the purlins? Tim

Thank you Will for the information. It has cleared up a lot. And that link to the history of lumber book is a great find!

And neat to hear contemporary builders are using this system today.

This "CG" (connected girt) system may be a northern New England practice as you say, but funny that TIMBEAL, who lives in Maine has not seen it before. I think Tim is in Washington County, right Tim?? (far eastern Maine). This helps illustrate how Maine is not the homogeneous state many believe it to be. The state differs greatly north and south of Bangor (you wont find the "Maine accent" north of here)... and I think that's largely true as far purlin systems go too. Can you comment Tim?

As many know, the north of the state is French-Canadian, the south is English in terms of settlment patterns. Bangor is a good dividing line.

Tim, as far as the purlin systems in these CG barns I've visited, the purlins are flush w/ the top of the rafters. In fact, the latest one, which is supposedly dated to 1880, has a sawed frame, yet the purlins (and only the purlins) are hand hewn...

I agree that lining up that many tenons for the next bent must be alot to handle. Makes me think the purlins have just a haunch set in a pocket of the rafter and not a true mortise and tenon like the girts in the walls.

I'll have to go back and look at some of these.

may the education continue...

Don

Hi Don, North or South or maybe I am East of Bangor, the weather man never knows. I have never thought of coastal down east Maine as being French Canadian but have thought that of northern Maine "The County". There is a 3rd part of Maine, the Eastern part, which is often over looked. My home town of Jonesport/Beals has a thick accent and if you trave 20 or so miles toward Canada it completely changes. Sort of like frame details.

I have not seen any CG bent typologies here. That doesn't mean they are not here just not discovered yet. I am looking. Are there any pegs at the purlin/rafter joint? Tim

Tim,
yes, eastern maine is a bit of an anomaly. And not FrenchCanadian. I have read that purlin frames are typically not found in the northern part of our state... Roughly above Bangor. Can you confirm?

Of the 4 "CG" frames I've seen here in southern Maine. One clearly shows pegged purlins. The others aren't as obvious. One that was restored had new purlins put in and they were spiked on. I'd have to go back and check on the others. And I will some day in the near future...

By the way, dovetailing the purlins into the rafters would be a neat method.

thanks--

Don

My assumption of tenoned purlins, was based on contemporary English carpentry, so it will be interesting to find out if this detail was retained in the "new improved square rule" or if the purlins were all housed. Presumably there must be some fixings between at least one of the purlins and the rafters to prevent the other purlins falling out of their housings.
How closely spaced are these common purlins? about 4 foot apart or closer?

I was putting off replieing in hopes that someone else from common purlin land might pipe in...

It would be kinda cool if the forum could be used almost as a research tool, and some greater sense of the extent of the range of dominance and varitions of historical example might be posted.

But I'm thinking there are too few regular posters or even lurkers from the area for any patterns to emerge...

There are three common variations I see most frequently, I'll start with what is probably the least common of the three, because it has a tenoned member, while tenons are used infrequently in CP systems. I've seen the term Major Purlin / Minor Purlin bantied about in print, to describe (if memory serves) this version, (though I've never used it in conversation) I think sussex Oak might know it as a Butt Purlin (on the road at the moment so I connot consult my library) I know the main tenoned purlin as a Principal Purlin (but that may be confusing to some in that this term is often used interchangebly with Purlin Plate)

In this variation a heavier (Say 6 X 9 on the flat) tenoned purlin is found at midpoint of the Principal Rafter - This almost always found with up & down wind bracing - Sometimes they are staggered up & down (to allow for greater tenon relish) - I have seen the occasional in-line example where two hi/lo bypassing tenons shared the same mortise.

Perhaps the most common variation has regularly spaced (40" - 42" - Memories not serving - I should know, but this is only an educated guess) purlins - These at first glance, appear to be individual pieces, (This is noticed most easily when round poles hewn on the top and adzed to square at the Principal Rafters are used as CP's) but often span multiple bays (two most commonly) and the breaks are staggered with intent - a technique which survived the transition to CG framing (and indeed became more important and necessary) - These purlins like the ones above and below the Principal in the above example, lap unbroken through a two inch deep dap in the top surface of the Principal Rafter.

There are examples from both sides of the transition which are broken at every bay. Like the ends of multiple bay purlins, two opposing laps share a dap. In both cases the rest/bottom of the purlin sits in a housing.

The last common variation, is found most commonly in earlier scribed buildings, and has staggered purlins sharing a common dap, with a short section (10 to 18 inches) for relish dropping down to full depth in the bay beyond. These also span multiple bays.

Don -- I have never seen a historical CP which was dovetailed, (Though they do drop in) but it was a common way of joining them early in the current revival.

Are the pegs you are seeing a single peg in the center of the rafter ? Or are there groups ?

Hi Will,

What's a dap ?

I agree whole heartedly that this forum could be put to much greater use and what better if "the archive" were opened to let us see some of the recorded frames and thus help illustrate the points that you make above. With posts such as yours maybe the peepers could be turned into contributors. Don has done a great job in encouraging us to examine and discuss this very interesting subject.

The outcome of this topic goes a long way to explaining (to me) why Ted Benson (NH) made use of the interrupted wall plate CG framing style illustrated in his first book. I never could quite understand why he did this when Jack Sobon's (western Mass.) books clearly exhibit a definite preference for continous wall plates. It now seems from your discourse above that this style of framing would appear to be both limited in range and date - just like our experience with some specific framing styles here in England.

By the way, SussexOak is none other than Joe Thompson - the Weald & Downland Open Air Museum lead Carpenter. Joe teaches the "timber framing from scratch" courses held at the museum and also lectures on the Bournemouth University Masters in Timber Building Conservation course also held at the museum under course Director - Richard Harris.

Regards

Ken Hume

Will, Sussexoak, Ken:

Yes, what is a dap?

I too have read the terns "Major" and "Minor" in regard to purlins. I interpret it as follows: Minor is another word for common purlin (smaller roof memnbers). Major is found in a common rafter system when the span is so great that a single beefy (major) purlin runs the length of the building, halfway between eve and ridge and supports the common rafters perpendicularly in the center of their span.

As far as obviously pegged purlins in the CG frames I've seen, there is a single peg through the rafter where the purlins intersect... looks like one peg holing both purlins (lapped?)...unless they're really long purlins and span 2 or more bents!

You can look at this photo of the actual barn I'm refering to here:
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/GrayCornerskyward.jpg
But, you'll have to zoom in to see the pegged areas.

These rafters are spaced like the others, about 3-4 feet O.C.
This barn is an old hand hewn frame from the early 1800s. 1820 the owners say.

Will, it would seem this CG system spans a significant time period of at least 6 decades. The latest CG frame I encountered is sawn stock (circular) and dates to 1880. Again, the owners say.

I'm planning to revisit these soon and take many close up pictures, especially of the roof details... what else should I photograph... one thing that comes to mind is sills/bottom plates, and what they did on this part of the wall.

the dovetailed purlin comment was just for the sake of conversation. I have not seen this. Someone (sussexoak?) was asking about tying things together so the purlins dont fall out. I thought a dovetail would be a good solution. Albeit a lot of work!!

I'm excited about what's happened w/ this thread. I knew when I saw this style of construction it was unusual. You guys have been a great help.

may the education continue

Don

Ken --

A Dap is a term used commonly here in NE (and increasingly elsewhere) meaning the use of a simple notch - a housing like joint, (though always deeper) which serves in some non housing application.

Joe --

Did we cross paths in '02 whaen I demonstrated at Frame at the Weald & Downland, and was hanging about nextdoor with Ken at West Dean College ?

Don --

Yes, Connecting Girt Framing in many iterations was used through to the end of historical timber framing in the area.

I only made mention of the dovetail/CP issue in that it is a common misconception in the community that this is a historical detail.

Looking forward to your pictures.

Hi Will,
Yes we met when you kindly came over to the Museum as part of Frame 02 and demonstrated with Rudy Christian a couple of versions of Square Rule.
In this thread that I am following from a distance it is intriguing to see how assumptions based on my local experience in Sussex, are not applicable in different circumstances. In the latest instance there is no need to cut the purlins to bay lengths, when long 2 bay length timbers are easily available and you can simply house them into the top of the principal rafters.
The "new" name for butt purlins is tenoned purlins. They are found either in line or staggered from bay to bay, and the common rafters are either morticed into the purlins or pass over the top of the purlin. So 4 major variations available, with 2 typically found.These are tenoned purlins, in line, with rafters passing over the top and tenoned purlins, staggered, with tenoned rafters.
Anyway all fascinating stuff to hear about CG framing.

Hello everyone;

I never thought much of connecting girt (CG) framing because they are common in my experience in New Hampshire and now Maine. I live almost half way up the coast of Maine, and there are quite a variety of framing styles here including both common rafters and common purlins and more.

Will, I have been looking at historic lumber terminology lately and have realized how language vaires by location and time just like framing styles. I have never heard the terms dap or butt purlin before.

I have formed the opinion that frame science, like natural science, will eventually need scientific (Latin?) terminology for clear, global communications.

I would be interested to know the details of the earliest known CG frame.

Jim

Jim, I think I mentioned this in a past post, I don't see any CG frames in my area reinforcing your framing/language therory. I am only up the coast a short way from you. Tim

Folks:

I revisited both these barns last week and have posted small slideshows on PhotoBucket.

There is much, much to share about these two "connected girt" buildings. We're lucky in that both barns represent different classes of folks (farmers/gentlemen). And both are in the same town within 3 miles of each other here in southern Maine. Both are from the early 1800s.

"Barn 1" goes with a prominent brick house in the center of town and was/is sided w/ clapboards. It was not a common farmer's building.

"Barn 2" sits alone and was a common farmer's building. The house is gone. Clapboards were added sometime later in the barn's history. I know this because there are still interior battens covering the joints between the vertical boarding. The battens made it weather tight originally. (Interior battens are something I was unaware of until recently. They are quite thin...1/4 to 3/8" and are wider that you'd think...3"). I also pulled 2 nails from the vertical boarding on this barn (see slideshow). They're cut, not forged, and measure a uniform 3-5/8" long.

Roof details:

Barn 1 is 40 X 54 and has a bent spacing of about 13 feet. The major rafters are very slightly tapered towards the peak and measure about 7 X 9 at the butt. Purlins are roughly 4' O.C. and sit in a notch (dap?) cut in to the rafter. The purlins are flush with the top of the rafters. They're also pegged straight through. The run of the purlins is half the building's length, meaning they span more than one bay. They're staggered and run slightly past each other where they meet at the rafter.

Barn 2 is 40 X 50 with a bent spacing of about 10', and is overall more stoutly built. But time has not been as kind. It is far more deteriorated. Look at the exposed exterior framing at the eave on the slideshow of this barn (Barn 2). With the absence of a top wall plate, you can see what they came up with to attach the roof boards at the eaves.

the rafters are 8 X 8 and do not appear to be tapered. The purlins are notched into the major rafters like Barn 1. Some span more than one bay, some do not. Again, they're spaced about 4' O.C.

Walls:

Whats interesting is a couple of variations...

Barn 1 has the topmost connecting girt fairly close to the top of the post, about 6". And the wall boards are not uniform lengths at the top of the walls (random).

Barn 2 has the topmost girt about 12" down from the top of the post and the wall boards are nice and uniform to the roof eave.

My thinking is that the sloppy wall board length has something to do with whether the barns' exteriors are trimmed or not. Barn 1 has its soffit trimmed out, Barn 2 does not.

I'll try and answer what I can. It's been pretty interesting.

Housewright is correct: The closer you look, the more you see...

Here are the photobucket links:

Barn 1 :
http://s286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/?action=view&current=2af69292.pbr

Barn 2:
http://s286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/?action=view&current=9a35a90e.pbr

Don

The mystery seemingly deepens...

Don - As I've suggested above, I've never been in a Scribed Connecting Girt barn, and I've restored or repaired more than a few, and have been in countless more. (every opportunity to explore any historic frame that comes up - Often work diven "Would you look at my barn ? kinda things - but also any Antique Store, Farm Stand, Barn Sale, or neighbor in his barnyard opportunity that arises) And here you find a pocket of them, both the CG Barns in your photographs are Scribed.

It might be that the cross section I have visited is not large enough to accurately reflect developed patterns, or it might be that there were some hard headed locals who were happy to build to their clientels desire, in the new framing style, but chose to continue to lay out their framing in the method they preferred and were comfortable in - One of the most mysterious aspects of the rapid shift to Square Rule is why it overcame the (human) natural tendency of people to resist change and stick with what they know best - Paradoxically, it is in some ways easier to scribe a CG barn than its plated counterpart, it is simply earier to move small pieces around than it is to move long continuous or scarfed plates. In the end the choice of Square over Scribe is only the trading of one set of tasks for a different set of tasks - The carpenters who witnessed and participated in the shift would have known both sets - Both have their advantages, and to my mind, SR is not a clearly superior choice - Which leaves only personal preference or fashion or following the trend of the competition - Making it only that much more mysterious.

Have you researched or verified the dates of construction of these barns ? I'd like to see them if you're willing and it can be arranged, I'm guessing I'm only about an hour or so from you, Lebanon being the closest border town.

Jim - Butt Purlin is an English term, and one Sussex Oak suggests has been superseded. Dap is a term common to bridgewrighting, where such joinery is common, bypassing webs often being let into one another (double dapped) or chord lams being let into posts. It does seem to be coming into more common usage in the trade, I was recently brought to a smile, while in a joinery planning session in recently co-instructing this years FTX, one of the other instructors used the term.

Besides, Dap, despite, or perhaps because of, its seeming simplicity, extends a certain elegance and eloquence, simply not found in notch.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dap

And I would have attended your historic framing get together, had I not been out of the area.

I too, would be interested to know the details of the earliest known CG frame, and as a fellow philologer / student of the ever evolving derivation of words and terms, and especially those common to our trade, I'd be interested in knowing the contemperaneous term for this framing methodology - Did ironwork borrow the term from timberframing or did the timber framing revival borrow it from ironwork ?

The look and description of "dap" would be what I would call a lap. Another name could be housing.
So is dap a corruption of lap?
Laps, mortice and tenon, and scarf joints being the 3 major jointing families used in English timber framing.

The recent use of dap to me is new. A dap to my thinking is the slight recess for a piece of steel, for instance a circular countersink for a shear connector to drop into or for a Simpson type strap to fit flush in.

Not saying I know what I'm talking about though.

I can see how dap would be applicable. The surface of the water is just broken, and the surface of the rafter is just broken, a dap.

On a road trip today I stopped at 3 barns, the first 2 no one home and the third someone was there and happy to have the barn looked at. It was a mutt, mixed with older/used timber, mortices in crazy spots, scarf joints, and English top plates used as principal purlins put in up side down exposing the dovetails to below. These were matching plates about 40' long with scarfs extending to about 60'. It had a queen rod truss as the second bent, I'm guessing to allow the animal to swing around as they came in the gable end door. Still no CG's.

Tim

I love learning new things! I looked dap up in a couple of good dictionaries I have but dictionary.com had the best definitons. Now I want to know the origin of "dap"!

Another term I have heard used for a cut accross a rafter where a perlin passes is a trench cut as opposed to a notch, which does not go all the way accross the piece.

Will, I do not know what FTX is.

I tried setting up slideshows of three CG barns (I call these bent style frames, too) but it was not going well and I need some sleep so I will try again in the next few days.

Jim

Will,

That's great that these are scribed CG barns and that you've been seeking some examples. Yes, we can visit them. It would be great to meet. I now know of 5 of these CG barns... only 1 is built of sawn timber. 4 are in one town, 1 in another. According to Google Maps, Barnstead is about 80 miles away from these barns, which are in Gray, Maine... they give a travel time of about 2 hrs.

Tell me, how did you know they are scribed? Was it the marriage marks? I must admit that I'm foggy on what exactly "scribed" means and how to know it on sight. It sounds like it's an older method. In order to get everything in a common plane, it involves custom fitting/scribing of inexact (hewn) timbers. (correct?)

This CG style seems like an easier and simpler method, especially in regards to raising. Perhaps that's why it was done? Upon erection, the major roof frame is already in place, and its easier to erect a frame transversely, etc... but I'm only speculating.

Another detail I wanted to mention: The rafters and crossties are cantilevered over the posts a bit in this CG style. If you look at the pictures again you can see that Barn 2 exhibits this to a greater degree than in Barn 1.

Anyway, given the travel distance between us, it will be a full day for sure... I will try and pin down construction dates more for these buildings, so lets plan on 2-3 weeks out. I've been going by owner accounts and my own observation/knowledge for dating. I'll meet with the historical societies and owners again and see what I can get for more definitive numbers. From what the owners say, Barn 2 seems like the older of the two. But we may not be able to trace it exactly... it's like trying to document what you had for dinner 4 and 5 tuesdays ago!

Don

I think the absence of housings and reductions which are present in scribe rule. Let us see what Will thinks. I wonder if the sawn frame is scribed or square? Tim

Don, If you and the owners are willing, I would be willing to help you organize a barn tour of up to say 20 barn enthusiests. Would you be willing?

Jim

Jim:

Hello-- This is a good idea. I was thinking that more would want to come see. But 20 is probably too many... 10 or less would be more like it.

Mostly because these barns are obviously old and are therefore structurally compromised. Folks will likely want to go to the lofts in order to look at the construction details in the roof/walls... this is "pass at your own risk" territory. The lofts can't support many people. In fact when I was there, just two of us (me and the owner) were causing one of the lofts to get very bouncy. I was having second thoughts kind of feelings.... It felt like rickety staging

Second, I don't want to descend on the owners w/ a group that big.

And third, both these barns are just FULL of crap! As I'm sure you have seen, many old barns are just storage vessels these days. Getting around is very difficult even for 2 people.

I think one barn owner would welcome a group (of 10 or less), I'll have to run the whole thing by the other owner. She told me "very few people have seen the inside of this barn (in the last 50 years)."

I'll run the idea of "small groups," less then 10, by them... If there are more barn junkies who want to come, we could do it during two weekends perhaps.

I'll certainly try... the whole thing is really getting neat and I'd like to meet all you "barn junkies."

My wife thinks I'm a bit weird to be into barns. Sound familiar?

Don

Joe --

While yes, Lap is a family, a catagory of joinery - It is also a noun, for the male half of a joint.

In the lexicon I am describing - the Dap is the female half. The definition above suggests that it is a 16th century variation of dab - I wonder what the OED suggests.


Don --

I hadn't really been seeking examples, but had come to the assumption (without much more thought than that) than none existed. This based solely on personal experience, having been in (guessing) something approaching a hundred such buildings, and maybe a somewhat smaller number of earlier (mostly English Tieing) scribed frames.

Yes, as Tim suggests, an abcense or a presense of housings and reductions make the identification as to Scribe or Square quite simple, but there are other identifiers as you have guessed.


I'd like to recommend this book by New Hampshire State Architectural Historian, James Garvin - Jim gave an excellent talk at TTRAG '04 and is an open treasurehouse of knowledge

http://books.google.com/books?id=oC4zG5aR4rwC&pg=PA20&dq=square+rule+scribe+rule+Northern+new+england&sig=FM4_r0vWe9l_PmFJolK4kKTxkXg#PPA20,M1

Tim --

Perhaps have seen this or own a copy, there's a short section on plank houses on the following page.

Hi Don; You're right,, it is hard to find an empty barn. Thanks for looking into doing aa tour.

As a carpenter who likes old buildings I would like to point out that many old buildings are better built than modern buildings.Just because it is old does not mean it is "structurally compromised". Also, bouncy does not mean weak. You are correct to be cautious going into rarely used barns. I often start at the basement and work my way up so I can see the condition of the floors before walking on them.

Thanks again;
Jim

Don, I would encourage a barn tour, 20 sounds like a lot, but isn't, (there was two bus loads at the last TTRAG) and who knows how many would show, maybe not even ten. It's great to have a group together to hash things over and make new discoveries.

Will, I wanted to read more but the second page left me hanging in the air at the end. Here is another Plank House question. When plastering the inside wall was the wall strapped first? This would allow the plaster "key" to work. Where, if the lath is just nailed to the planks how/where is the key? Gosh its late. Tim

Tim/Jim:

I know these buildings are strong still. But I'd hate to collapse anything!!! Who knows what kind of liability issues the owners' would face if someone got hurt.

Anyway, we will likely do a tour. And the folks who have been active in this thread will be invited first. But 20 is still too many. Like I said before, if the interest is there, we can do 2 visits of 10 or less.

Please understand, it's unique what I've been able to do in the community where these barns are, and I want to keep the owners' good faith... I just finished a six month newspaper series on old barns in this area. 20 were surveyed. The president of the local historical society told me it's no small feat that I've been able to gain the trust of these folks and have them open up their homes/barns for public view on the printed page.

Toward that end, I need to respect their privacy and not descend on them w/ a group (much less a bus) of strangers. No offense, but you guys are strangers. One of these 2 barn owners is particularly private. Word spreads fast in a small New England town and I need to protect the unique relationship I've built with these folks. Otherwise, I'll burn bridges w/ future barn folks... (I'm trying to put a book together).

I'll proceed gingerly in my request for a group visit...

I know how you guys must feel...chomping at the bit to see these unique barns. And I think it will happen. Let's just take it slow..

Who knows, with time, maybe we can visit all 5 of these CG barns. Perhaps if I broach the issue w/ the owners that their barn is part of a regional tour of "CG" barns they may feel less under the microscope... and they might not want to get left out of the survey... a bit of reverse psychology maybe???

hhmmmmnn...

Don, Have you ever seen a horse chomping at the bit? Sometimes its because they are bored and want to get back to work, or even thinking, horses actually think and when they do they start to chew on nothing, grind, grind. It's actually something to be up close to a horse when they are doing this. Any way, Maybe we are like the horse and are happily waiting and just passing the time. I am sure you know these folks and have a sense of their mindset and that last line sounds like it will work. Tim

Tim:

I think plan in the last line will work too. I sent out an email to the owner who's a bit private yesterday. Now I'm chomping at the bit for a reply. Horses are mysterious to me; neat that you have a knowledge of them.

And it's great that you've been looking for these CG barns in your area. I'm starting to respect the little details about them. It seems like it has some distinct advantages over plate construction.

In regard to your question whether the sawn frame is scribed, I doubt it. That one was built in the 1880s. (Do you know when scribing ended as a common practice?)

What's funny though is that everything in that frame is sawn, execpt for the purlins...and only the purlins. They're all hand hewn. Why?

This stuff is great fun. Looking forward to meeting you down here in one of these barns soon.

Don

Don, I'm not one for exact dates, but square rule was developed in the early 1800's. Scribe work carried on for some decades, much like there are still people building with full 2x4's and boards in the midst of plywood etc. I'm not sure if some building practices actually stopped more that they slowed down to a trickle and than picked up again, for there are folks still practicing both forms today. As a connection, I have seen a barn/garage in my area which is balloon framed ext. wall system, with a mortice and tenon timbered interior built in the 1940's.

I would classify CG frames and top plate frames as just being different and dependent on the material at hand, and not advantageous over one or the other. What could be some of the advantages?

Purlins I have seen are mostly hewn and longer small stock and show the bark, passing over a couple of rafters at least. It was a simple use of material and easy to handle. They are fun and easy to hew and you can man handle them. Probably not worth the saws time. And possibly made by the farmer, who probably whittled his own axe handles. Tim

Tim:

Yes, I know what you mean about keeping traditions. Some folks still build in the old ways, which is wonderful. It's what this fourm is all about, I think... Full-thickness lumber, board sheathing, etc. Dating is tough because traditions die hard!!

Based on what you tell me and from what's been going around on the forum, I'm guessing that the sawn-frame CG barn in my area built in the 1880s is probably not scribed, largely because of its "newer" date. We'll see.

But let me address what you said on the last thread... As far as advantages of the CG design, I can think of 3... and this is possibly something a meeting-of-the-minds can discuss when we meet/visit. This should be exciting stuff to talk about...

1. Erection/construction advantages:

I feel it would take less hands to erect a barn transversley, bent by bent, attaching them with girts as you go. Of course traditional "plate" barns can be erected transversley, but bracing them in position for the lowering of the continuous plate apprears to now be an extra, tricky, and time consuming exercise. All the bents must be held in perfect position, while the massive plate is hoisted and lowered. Extras in both time and hands required.

2. Preventing roof spread:

As we've seen, a CG barn's major rafters rest directly on the crossties and not on a plate. These rafters are also tenoned or pinned to the crossties pretty substantialy, which are atop post tenons. the crossties in all 5 of these CG barns are continuous, not spliced. This all makes a true "truss" in every sense of the word. In plate construction, most crossties are tenoned into the posts and because of relish issues cannot resist tension (the walls spreading under a roof load)to the same degree. And only one crosstie is needed per bent. (To gaurd against roof spread, a queenpost truss, for example, really has two crossties). This is extra lumber, extra time, etc.

3. Efficency advantage.

Another point on CG style is that of efficency. In addition to what I already said (raising, timber economy, etc.) there is no need to hunt down big trees and then hew long top plates... often the largest timbers in a building. I would think a 3-4 guys and a good horse could erect these CG bents w/ less effort than the traditional plate method (that uses either transverse bents, or longitudinal sections, which are enormously heavy...requiring 15 (or more) men w/ gin poles, etc...)

The more I study this CG system, the more I'm respecting it. For nothing else, it's different. AND it doesn't compromise tradition! You can still hand hew and scribre away, incorporating joinery galore!!

I also remember Will Truax stating a CG system would be easier to scribe than it plated counterpart because it's eaiser to move smaller timbers/sections around than large plates/sections.

At any rate, that's stuff to chew right now. Study the CG system carefully...it's kind of neat in many (and often subtle) ways.

Don

Hi Don,

I have noted a decided change in the way that you are presenting your arguments.

The true test for timber buildings, including elements of their design and construction, lies with the passage of time. From what you say thus far none of the buildings employing the CG system has yet reached 200 years old and therefore it remains to be seen whether or not these buildings will still be present in the landscape in another 200, 400 or 600 years time.

Regards

Ken Hume

I guess it time to build a connecting girt frame, to continue some tradition, this will be my nest frame design.

Last night I came to a realization the CG frames are just English Tying Joints with out the continuous top plates. just lower the plate and use a straight post. Much the same way the dropped tie was used to make the bents go up rather than the long walls. In a time scheme these two systems seem to have developed around the same time?

Raising large top plates can be done via gin pole by 2 people, and even one. 15 does make it quicker and easier but not necessary. More....Tim

Tim:

How neat that you'll build your next frame this way! It will be interesting to hear your experience. And yes, the CG does seem to be a English tying joint minus the plates. the rafters sit atop the crosstie, etc.

Ken:

Nice to hear from you after the many threads. I was waiting to hear from you again. Forgive me if my tone has changed. I'm only tying to create discussion so we all can learn. That's why I hunted up this forum in the first place. Perhaps it's my own insecurities, but I've felt the need to assert myself as a carpenter based on some recent comments. I only recently went to college and became a writer. I've been schooled as a carpenter and furniture maker for 20 years prior. I get the feeling some folks here think I only have book knowledge. Though I have never raised a frame, I have built/rehabbed many projects. I'm no stranger to tools, both hand and power. Right now I'm building a houseboat...

I do feel the CG system is worthy of study and praise. One of these barns is 200 years old, which is pretty good for this country. We'll never have the history of England's frames, and I'm not suggesting tossing out the plate tradition, I just see some advantages to the CG style.

Don

Hi Will,
If Dap is the female part of the lap joint, is Dab the male part?

I have been looking for some names that are an improvement on the male and female, which is derived more from metal engineering it seems, rather than from carpentry.

but if not the above names, then what do you call the two parts of a lap joint?
best wishes

Joe

Here are images of three CG barns. One thing they all have in common is they are all basement barns.

Sorry if youfind the motion of the images annoying. Click on the image to get to the slide show.

Wilton, Maine. This is the only barn in New England I have seen which has unpinned braces. This style of framing is very common around the Farmington area.

Deerfield, New Hampshire. This is an 1851 or 1857 barn which was circular sawn and has turned pegs.

Sherley, Massachusetts.

All three of these barns are still in the process of being relocated. The Wilton barn is for sale.

Jim

Hi Housewright,

The Wilton and Deerfield barns appear to match the description provided thus far of typical CG frames but the Shirley barn is quite different in that it has interrupted wall plates that join into the ends of the tie beams rather than connecting girts which join lower down into the posts. More importantly this barn also has an "additional" set of horizontal dragon ties which connect the tie beams to the wall plates and this is a really archaic practice which died out in England in the 1300 / 1400's and yet here it is reappearing centuries later in Massachusetts.

It is debateable whether the Shirely barn is a major CG variant or actually belongs to a completely different classification and hence I think that it is certainly worth consulting Jack Sobon's Historic American Timber Joinery Series - Part II - Tie at Plate (downloadable from the TFG website) where Jack features this very joinery configuration in figure 31 & 32 on a 1850's barn previously located at Shrewsbury, Mass.

Don,

The Shirley barn may be a good one to feature in your research articles.

Regards

Ken Hume

Don have you seen Sobons yellow covered book which Ken mentions? (page 17) I haven't seen the downloadable version and am wondering what happened to fig. 31-33 in the yellow book. Fig. 34 and 35 show the bracing in three planes like the Sherely Mass barn. Ken I see the dragon tie connection, I am guessing they weren't thinking dragons at the time, just more bracing. I always pictured the cross tie as a support for the dragon and not specifically to brace the building, all though it must help. It seem the builders of the Sherely barns, for there are two of them bolted together, liked to brace a lot. In one of the other barns Jim shows there was bracing even in the roof system. These CG frames with the girts at the plate level are almost the same as a house frame I rebuilt which had long plates which were half lapped with the ties, at a first glance it is difficult to tell which style they built with. That building only had 8 braces in the whole frame, and three were missing. Tim

Hi Ken,
I would classify the Shirley Barn as a major varient of the CG tradition, as the plates are not continuous.
Remember also that angle ties, were used in circa 1300, as you correctly state, but that they also made a return, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when "level assenbly" was adopted (The tie beam spanning the building is tenoned into the wallplate, and the top faces of both timbers are at the same level). Here the angle tie braced the roof plate frame, and in some circumstances had a dragon tie jointed into it to facilitate the jointing of the foot of the hip rafter. So the use of angle ties in nineteenth century US work had contemporary useage in Southern UK.

Hi Joe,

I was not aware of the existence of "level assembly" dragon ties in England and this just goes to show that building practices are probably not necessarily that widespread. Where can these buildings be seen in England ?

Re variant versus different typology my initial thoughts were as per your advice above but later I recognised that unless the plate is specifically positioned then it would not be able to accept common rafters whereas CG's can be variably positioned at different elevations but then of necessity a common purlin roof has to be employed. So is the Shirley barn a CG variant or simply an interrupted wall plate as per Jack Sobon's article in TF No 56.

Re the dragon ties employed at the corners of a building with fully hipped roof I agree that these are fitted primarly to facilitate the construction of the roof structure i.e. this component is really part of the roof whereas the primary function of the dragon ties employed between wall plate and tie beam on intermediate and gable frames are part of the (wall plate & tie) frame structure.

I well realise that some of this might appear to some as being symantics but in order to arrive at a classification acceptable to all then there would need to be some logical basis for decision making. Who is the arbiter on these matters ? I wish that Jack would occasionally chime in on the forum to offer his opinions.

I was probably wrong to say that Jack's article can be downloaded from the TFG website but it can certainly can be reviewed in TF 56 or providing I am not breaking any copyright rules I can send any one reviewing the content of this forum thread with a *pdf copy (0.8mb) of this article by email.

Regards

Ken Hume

What is the correct terminology. Connecting girts are just that, can we call these buildings CG buildings? Where Jacks writings point in the direction of Interrupted plates and dropped interrupted plates all within the classification of tie beams at the plate. Are there any historic buildings with both dropped ties and dropped connecting girts, other than the newer Benson type of rafter to post bent frames? Tim

Tim:

Sorry, I am not aware of Sobon's yellow covered book, only the biggie he wrote w/ Roger Schroeder.

But I'm proud to say that we have been accepted to tour the barn of the somewhat private owner (horray!)... the other barn (the more dillapidated one) is likely a shoe-in and I'll know on this one real soon. The somewhat private lady is a little concerned with the ammount of folks wanting to access the second floor and she wants to make some room/ clean up a bit... but she'll take 10 of us. Her 2nd floor is more sturdy that the other barn's that I said was like bouncy staging.

Housewright:

I guess we have the go-ahead for an event/visit, etc... do you think the two CG barns will be enough for the day, or should we try to schedule some other CGs. They're all within 20 minutes of each other...

I'll have to re-examine my photos, but since the discussions on the Shirley barn and what constitutes a true CG frame, one of the 5 CGs here may just be an interrupted plate frame and not dropped girts...

Don

Jim:

These are interesting. The Wilton frame w/ purlin roof is like what I have seen down here... the Deerfield one is odd in that it has common rafters (alongside the major ones). I've not seen this on any of the CG barns here.

The deerfield has a plate of some type supporting the common rafters. Is that continuous?

Don

Hi Ken,
I will defer any further from the classification debate. It is subjective, I can see both point of views, and being so far from the buildings!! etc.

Angle ties ( with no dragon ties) between level assembly buildings may be seen at

The saw pit shed, from Sheffield Park, nr Chailey, re-erected Weald and Downland Open Air Museum.Circa 1820

I have also worked on a Hay Barn from 1805 in Cuckfield with "normal assembly" that has angle ties between the tie beam and plate.
However a Hay Barn from Ockley, Surrey, also re-erected at the WDOAM from 1804/5 does not have angle ties with its level eaves.

These angle ties are lapped not morticed and tenoned.
So getting back on thread, then angle ties are found in early nineteenth century frames on both sides of the Atlantic.
The Sussex and Surrey ones are lapped with dovetails, whilst the NH examples appear mortice and tenoned.
Regards
Joe

Hi

Please forgive me for backing up so far in this thread. Much earlier, Ken asked about the TTRAG archives. As a member of TTRAG, I can tell you the archive does exist and has been given a home in Dave Lanoues beautiful shop in New York. The archive will not be available online until someone can spend the time to organize it and scan the information and create a site for it. I imagine all surveys are welcome to be submitted to the archive. Ask Dave at lanoueinc@aol.com for his mailing address.

Will, you made a comment about the circular saw being invented around 1816? The info I have is that the circular saw was invented in 1777 in Eengland, but took a long time to really come into use.

I cannot seem to navigate through the thread while writing this reply so I will need to submit it and then continue replying.

Jim

Ken, The Deerfield and Sherley barns are similar in that thay have tall posts which tenon into the rafters and have interupted tie beams. The Wilton barn has a single tie resting on top of four posts.

Will, I have heard that the distribution of common purlin roof systems is similar to the distribution of connected farm complexes. If you have the book Big House, Little House, Back House, Barn, look at page 20 (second edition). Connected buildings only occure in part of New England with the highest concentration in Maine.

Don, The Deerfield barn has a major purlin tenoned into the rafters. This major purlin carries the minor raftrers and is braced to the rafters.

Everyone, To add some information about the barns I posted images of; The Wilton barn is missing the lowest purlin in the images. It was a 2x8 spiked onto the ends of the ties. Also, the wall nailers were nailed onto the braces rather than being mortised into the posts.

Tim made a comment that there were "two barns" in Sherley. Technically it was just a two bay addition to the main barn but the addition was a complete frame unlike the two other barns which the two bay additions were attached to the last bent of the original barn without adding more posts.


I'll make a coment about the structural aspect of the barns with posts going all the way up to the rafters...Being interior posts which carry more floor load and roof load than the outside posts, you need to be sure the footings are sized properly to carry these posts. In the Deerfield barn these posts had settled several inches, and since the posts were pinned to the rafters,they pulled the rafters down in the middle creating a sag of perhaps four inches in the roof. Otherwise, it is a strong design.

Jack Sobon made a good comment in his joinery book about these "interupted plate" barns; once you get two bents up and braced, they are stable. Probably stable enough to help pull the remainder of the bents up with a block and tackle.

Don, good news about the barn tour shaping up. I'll call soon.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Thanks for that technical update.

I found myself going a bit squiffy eyed when watching the screen show as this moved a little too fast for my slow brain to follow and so please forgive any oversights.

I have contacted Dave and hopefully more news re the TTRAG archive will follow.

Regards

Ken Hume

Jim:

Interesting detail on the Deerfield barn, as far as the common rafters resting on a purlin. Like I said, all the CG barns I've seen here do not have common rafters at all. The date for this barn of 1851 or 57 is later than the 2 I've been posting pictures of... I wonder if this led the builders to the common (and sawn) rafter choice? Not even a birdsmouth/crowsfoot on them...

Anyway, it's unique... no two barns are the same, are they? That's what make it interesting, I think.

As far as the presense of purlin or common rafter methods throughout New England, Thomas Durant Visser's book "Field Guide to NE Barns and Farm Buildings," also gives a map on p.14...

All of New Hampshire is purlin teritory according to his map. But the map also says it depicts an 1840 time-frame... Neat barn. I've not seen that roof system before.

Don

Folks:

I wanted to post an update for those interested about the visits to the CG barns.

As it looks right now, how's Saturday 6/21 sound? There are 3 of these barns in very close proximity to each other, which is handy, as well as a fine chance for a informal, regional study.

Will Truax noted that the 2 barns I posted pics of before were scribed buildings... the third is a sawn frame from the 1880s, so probably not scribed. I don't know. We'll see.

I have the local historical society digging for solid evidence on dates, as requested. And I'll send more details as time approaches as far as directions. But how's June 21, at noon in Gray, Maine, sound for some CG barn snooping?

Don

Hi Don,

I wish that I could be with you all. I hope that you will post a few pics on the forum afterwards together with your findings for the enjoyment of those unable to attend.

Regards

Ken Hume

Don, would you like to know if we can make it, a confirmation, here or via e-mail? Any chance of it happening earlier in the day say 9:00 am? Tim

All right - I'm there, whatever time works best.

I'm interested not so much because the two are CG (nothing so unusual in that) but because they are potentially quite early for the typology, and I'd like to see how much they share with others of their type.

Back to the thread ---

Jim - I meant to ask earlier, the aspect of the Shirley barn I found intrieging was how deep into Mass Shirley is, did you poke your head in others in the area and find anything else similar ?

Guys:

Confirming your attendance for the visit via email is probably best. It's easier to navigate than the forum, which seems to get out of order at times.

Will, It would seem that a CG barn is unique in and of itself... otherwise folks would have chimed in in far greater numbers to help me when I first posted this thread. You and Housewright are the only folks to say you have seen this type of construction w/ any frequency. It seems it's just more common where you hail from. Tim Beal is still looking for an example up his way and said he has never built this type of building. And we have yet to hear from other timber enthusiasts saying "what's the big deal, I have these CG barns all over my town..."

Tim:
An earlier meeting time is ok w/ me... I live in the next town, so no problem, but others may need time to travel.

Ken: We should have plenty to post following the visit. I will get you pics.

Will, Housewright: is an earlier time of say 10:00 a.m. workable for you guys, or would you like to stick to noontime?

Housewright, any other folks you know interested in attending? Looks like you, me, Will and Tim at the moment... still have 6 spots left...

Don

Will, I do not know Sherley, MA very well but there was another almost identical barn across the street. I am told that the barn at the Brick House Antiques in Gilmanton Corners, NH is cg.

Don, earlier in the day is better. I will wait a week to see who replys from this forum before I send out invitations to the Maine Traditional Building Research Group and other potential "tourists" I know.

Jim

My thanks to Jim Derby for calling my attention to comments on this thread. I responded personally to Ken Hume, but at his urging, I'm also posting that response here:

Ken,

First, you should know that when I started in 1974, I hadn't met Jack yet and his first book didn't come out until 1984. My first book was written in 1978.

Second, I've always been a little dubious of the merits of trying to interpret forms of timberframing in history as if those guys were any different than you and I. They learned, adapted and improved over the course of their lives much as you and I have, and will. Like us, they were only prisoners to learned procedure and habit, not to rules that had to be adhered to, other than their mental ties to the conventional thinking of the time. As I look around at the residential building technology in today's world, I think that most of the conventional systems are inadequate or wrong, simply because there is apparently more ties to habits than there is creativity in adaptation and learning. So why would it have been any different 200 years ago? There were trends, but those trends were not binding rules and were not necessarily the best that could be done. I therefore do not assume the best of systems was always that which was most widely practiced.

In any event, when I was in my early years of timberframing, I wasn't looking to replicate the most historically accurate form of framing (what would that be?) or the most dominant (where?), but I was trying to learn from the past masters about methodologies that might best address the materials, tools and economics of what I hoped would become a thoroughly modern form of timberframing, based on our particular situation.

What you call a connecting girt (interrupted wall plate?) form of framing fit the bill. I found several barns in the Hillsborough, Henniker, NH area that were framed that way. What I saw immediately is that it would solve my short timber problem, eliminate the need to make scarf joints (time consuming, expensive) and allow the possibility that I could pre-cut wall girts and roof purlins to the same dimension, which greatly increased the efficiency of making the frame. It also created a situation where the posts could be connected directly to the principle rafters, which meant there would be no shrinkage in the height of the building. Since we used green oak and pine primarily, this shrinkage issue was significant. I didn't think good quality buildings could tolerate 1/2" to 1" of shrinkage and I still don't. Therefore, the reason I adapted this system was for efficiency (cost) and building quality.

Since those early years, we have continued to adapt, learn and improve and what we're doing in our 4th decade bares scant resemblance to the work we did in our 1st decade. I also have tried to document the changes and improvements in my series of books. As we have developed through the years, we have been able to learn from every period in history and from all parts of the world. Our work has also been tremendously influenced by modern engineering and contemporary foreign influences in our shop, including numerous timberframers from Japan, Germany and France. Of course, like all timberframers in the TFG, we are learning a lot from our contemporary colleagues as well. Sometimes, we've made frames from local materials that couldn't be longer than 20 ft. and sometimes we've had large quantities of timbers available up to 80 ft. All of these things have affected our timberframe designs, but probably nothing has had more influence than the evolution of the architecture of our buildings. For obvious reasons, frame design and building design are intertwined and it is our hope that we are defining an architecture of timberframe buildings that will endure centuries into the future. In the long run, the functionality and beauty of the building will have a far greater impact on perceived quality of the timberframe than whether it has continuous or interrupted plates, or any plates at all, for that matter.

Hi Tedd,

Your post is very welcome and throws new light into the background research undertaken for your first book and the development of your own particular style of timber framing.

I have come across a few old timber frame houses here in Olde England where the main post joints directly into the underside of the pricipal rafter. There is a notable medieval open hall house in West St, Farnham, Surrey just across the road from the Westminster Hall framing ground (1395) which incorporates this feature in the open arch hall cross frame and since this house dates from the late 1300's I like to think that it was cut by carpenters engaged on the great works but alas this house refuses to give up its secrets easily, as we were not able to obtain reliable dendro dates due to the widespread use of fast grown timber. Using oak trees with only 50 or so growth rings is something that appears to be quite common practice in early English medieval houses and it also demonstrates that the use of this type of material (i.e. not old growth) can possibly enhance the life span of a timber framed building.

I have not yet seen any CG (interrupted) wall plates in England but they might well exist somewhere that is frequented only by bats and mice. If I come across any I will let you all know.

Regards

Ken Hume

Hi,

Derek - I don't think that there was a Royal Navy in 1390.

The use of juvenile timbers rather than old growth has probably got more to do with being able to take advantage of the long established woodland management technique of coppice grown timber cultivation which requires the regular harvesting of timbers which are just fit for purpose with their removal at the earliest opportunity having the added benefit of reducing the complexity of conversion and wastage of excess amounts of wood.

An oak cruck framed building just up the road from me at Silchester has been dated to (circa) 1405 and it was established during the dendro process that all of the primary timbers in this frame had less than 40 growth rings each, with some of the annual ring widths reaching 5/8".

During a TFG executive visit to Cressing Temple in Essex in spring 1993, (following the fire at Windsor Castle) Cecil Hewett pointed out to the assembled group of carpenters that the rafters in the great barns dating from the early to mid 1200's exhibited only 25 growth rings at their feet and that these were hewn as a single piece from wall plate to arcade plate and again from the arcade plate to ridge. Later Oliver Rackham established that these rafters were all converted singly from trees of approx 45 - 50 years age with branch knot patterns indicating that the trees were all close grown in the woodland (coppice ?).

Happy days.

Regards

Ken Hume

In studying wood science I learned that fast growth oak (or any ring-porus wood) is stronger than slow groth: the opposite is true for nonring-porus woods. In other words, if you are using oak and want it to be as strong as possible, look for fast growth lumber. For strong pine, look for slow growth.

Ken, I am still hopeful to learn the origin and distribution of this connecting girt framing style. I am glad to read that you will keep your eye out for them in Old England.

Derek, I am not sure what you mean about timberframing having been in America for 14,000 years. Anyway, we are primarily talking about 19th century framing.

Tedd, it is interesting that you take such a forward-looking view of building design. I am totally focused on looking backward at historical examples and trying to identify the ethnic origin and progression of framing techniques in North America (primarily Maine), but I do very much respect the modern approaches to wooden joinery, craftsmanship, and building design. Maybe someday the modern level of craftsmanship will approach the historic timber framing examples given in Hermann Phelps book (the English translation) The Craft of Log Building!

Jim

Well, this weekend produced some heavy activity on this topic. Thanks Housewright for getting Tedd Benson to chime in. He has great points indeed.

The Royal Navy in the 1300s is pretty funny. So is 14,000 years of timber framing in North America. Stone broadaxes, no doubt...

HWright: As far as the origins of CG you (and I) are still seeking, I thought we got that answered in large part by Will Truax. Ken Hume has found/ thinks there to be no evidence of an English carry-over, like I had originally surmised.

Mr. Truax said CG is a largely New England phenomenon, and northern NE at that. I remember him saying something to the effect of this style becoming popular "once the forests had been denuded of large timber.."

And it's nice to hear that Mr. Benson also sees a few advantages to the CG construction method. No doubt the early builders who "thought out of the box" did as well.

What is interesting, and Mr. Truax said this before, is why CG did not disseminate on a wider scale. I mean, if CG does have advantages, such as utilizing short timber, parts cutting efficency (girts and purlins same size, etc), and easier to erect than its long-plated contemporary... why do we see it only in these small pockets of Maine and New Hampshire?

Perhaps it was un-proven and too risky... perhaps we'll never know. I can live w/ that, but it's really pretty facinating to consider. How neat that it is being studied here today.

may the education continue...

Don

I heard back from Jan Lewandowski about connecting girt barns and with his permission here is his email response:
"Dear All,
Bent style barns are very common in the entire state of Vermont. I usually date them from about 1830 -1870, they are usually gable entry, on a banked basement, and the tie beams sit on tenons atop the posts. The plate is segmental , tenoning into the sides of the tie beam and sometimes it is merely a flying, or eaves plate or eaves purlin. There are certainly hundreds of them.
Sometimes there is a girt that tenons into the posts a little below where a plate would be, and the rafters bear only on the segmental flying plate, or tenon as principals onto the tie beam end, or have an intermediate principal (so called) that bears on the flying plate and is sometimes blocked off the segmental girt.
While this sort of frame gets along with the square rule tendency to mass produce short frame elements, and the gable entry tendency towards modular bays of equal spacing rather than spacing based upon function (though the aisle widths may reflect this), it definitely predates square ruling. In our truss book look at the 1799 Rindge Church (queenpost) and you will see a scribed frame with tie beams tenoned onto post tops and giant segmental plates (12x 24) tenoned into the sides of the ties.
Jan"

I am thinking they must extend into New York, too. Interesting to have evidence of scribed cg frames.

Jim

Hey All:

Jan Lewandowski's comments are a good addition to our little CG conundrum, which appears to be slowly becoming less of one. Thanks Housewright for digging around for some answers!!

Too bad more folks like Tedd B. and Jan L. are unaware or uninterested in the forum. I mean this thread has been viewed over 5,000 times now and we're just getting folks to speak at length on CG typology. ?!?!

If there are hundreds of CGs in Vermont, why did we not here from anyone earlier? Are Vermont timber enthusiasts few and far between? I doubt it.

Oh well, I knew when I encountered that first barn in Gray, Maine that it was built differently. I thought all barns had top plates tying bents together. It appears many others here did too.

Out of 5,000 views only a few have had anything substantial to add. Perhaps we should put bumperstickers on our vehicles: like barns? check out www.tfguild.org/forums ...maybe then more folks would find us!

Don

Hi Don,

Your comments above re Vermont are a blinding glimpse of the obvious.

The TFG has their own building research group - The TTRAG and possibly they should be afforded their own forum / topic / threads where serious researchers can pose questions and maybe even help formulate answers just as we have started to do here.

Unfortunately the current forum moderators rarely show up to assist and possibly its time for the executives to review the workings of the whole TFG forums.

Regards

Ken Hume

Indeed, Ken.

I almost emailed moderator Christian directly a few weeks ago in an attempt to "go right to the source" so to speak. I was getting little info... Thankfully, Mr. Truax piped in and that got the wheels turning.

Perhaps I should solicit the moderator anyway.

I agree. The forum could benefit from some changes.

Don

I agree as well.

I know the Guild is open to improving the forum. I started the following thread as a place for all of us to share ideas about how to make this place better. http://www.tfguild.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=15589&page=0#Post15589

I hope anyone with some good ideas will chime in.

thanks

Well, it looks like our visit to the GC barns will be this saturday the 14th. Send me a private email if you'd like details on time and place, etc.

Don,

I'm looking forward to the full report -- photos, too!

Ya'll have fun.

Gabel

Thanks Gabel ! but it seems the meeting is on hold for now .

Please diregard my last post. A new date is being set up. Details to follow...

If one were to plot the locations of these CG barns on a map where would they start and end? Are they located in a central location and spread out from there? And what is the central location?

I see Jim has only to travel 1.5 hrs to view the barns on Dons tour and has contact with 4 states. I, on the other hand can stay in the same state and travel 3.5 hrs to the same point.

It is my conclusion that barn typology doesn't follow state borders. I think it is more population density. Barns without Borders. There is always exceptions. Tim

The visit is now re-comfirmed: July 12 is the date. Anyone interested please send a me private email for directions/time, etc. I think there are 5 of us so far, which leaves room for about 5 more.

Plotting these barns on a map is something that needs to be further researched for any informative conclusions. There are many many barns in this particular area of Gray, New Gloucester and North Yarmouth, Maine. The three we're planning to look at are all in Gray and span about 80 years. The historical society was able to date one of the scribed CG barns to 1805-1815. This is likely the earliest CG of the three we'll visit.

They're fairly close together (3-4 miles), but not in any distinct pattern. Some are working-man's barns w/ crude round rock foundations, others are next to prominent brick houses. Their foundations mortared, split granite.

I've looked at 20 barns here formally, and the CG phenomenon is found in about a fifth of them. I really need to look at more barns in the area to make a better determination of a pattern. How unexpected! If only I had time to knock on all the doors (before the fall down or burn)... There are easily 200 barns in these three towns, so my survey of 20 is only a tenth of what's regional... If these are unique, I'll find the time to make a better survey. Still hoping Vermont folks will chime in here to contribute on that regions CGs, which would help determine how unique the typology is.

By the way, I consider a true CG to be absent of top plates entirely, not just sectioned top plates... the "connecting girt" is clearly below the base of the rafter/ crosstie. Anyone else have thoughts on defining a true "CG." ???

Population density is an interesting factor to consider. Gray is/was the largest of the towns in terms of population, but it's early to say if this town has most of the CGs.

Indeed, barns w/out borders. May the education continue...

Hi all:

Well, the CG barn tour finally happened this past Saturday in Gray, Maine.

Forum members Will Truax, Jim Derby, Tim Beal, Jim Rogers and myself visited three connected-girt barns all in the same town that spanned roughly 100 years. It was great to swap knowledge and ask each other if we had seen certain types of building practices, and the pros and cons of construction styles. I know I learned a great deal about scribe and square rule differences. And seeing the examples of each type of CG style (square/scribed) over a period of decades through the eyes of others was absolutely interesting. This type of “meeting of the minds” doesn’t happen very often. And it was fun to traipse around town w/ new friends.

Here's a rough overview of the day:

(excuse the snow. old photos)





The first barn visited dates from roughly 1830-40 and is smack dab in the middle of Gray Village— one of the busiest traffic intersections in the state of Maine. It accompanies a stately federal-style brick house with five fireplaces. Built by the scribe method and hand hewn, the barn measures 40 x 54 and is comprised of five bents on roughly 13-foot centers. There was plenty of evidence of reused timbers and or repairs throughout its life span. The building exhibited both vertical and circular sawn boarding. But all boarding, both roof and walls, was applied vertically. Like all the CGs we saw this day, the roof was comprised of a major rafter and purlin system. The purlins spanned a couple of bays and passed each other, each joining at the center rafter.





The consensus was that the barn lacked adequate bracing longitudinally. A single diagonal plank measuring about 2 x 8 at each corner, which began at the upper end of the post and tied into a girt midway down the wall, was the only bracing in this direction. In short, there were just two on each long wall. This resulted in the addition of some massive diagonal bracing (peeled logs about 5 to 6 inches in diameter) installed at each side of the center aisle at some point— which suggested the barn had become quite racked (longitudinally) through the years. There is no basement to the building, and everything is pretty square these days. The girts for this building were dropped about 6 inches from the top of the posts.





We also ended up poking around in the attic of the accompanying house. Here the framing was similar, but the rafters were spaced closer together: roughly 6 1/2 feet on center. A unique feature was discovered regarding the roof ties. They did not span the width of the building… and talk about a unique use of pegs:










The age of the second barn visited, the earliest of the three is still being determined. But a Gray Historical Society member in his 70s, the great-great-great grandson of the original owner/ farmer, who farmed and or built this barn, is in the process of picking through old deeds… he states the building could very well be from the late 1700s. Will Truax mentioned that this is by far the oldest CG frame type he’s encountered.







This scribed and hand-hewn barn measures 40 x 50 with 6 bents on 10’ centers. Bracing was definitely not lacking here… this has no doubt helped this barn reach the 200+ year mark.











These girts are noticeably dropped—about 2’ from the top of the crossties. This barn also displayed reused timbers, though not as frequent as the first building. Vertical boarding w/ wide but thin interior battens clad the building. Saw marks were vertical and were espec. rough on the battens.







What were of interest in this barn were the mortises. All seemed to be oversized… too long for their receptive tenons. Each mortise was filled or “wedged” w/ a small block at the bottom (see photo):





The hewing, all done and finished by the axe, was especially good on this barn, which seemed to be made from pine— a species most thought all 3 barns were made of.



The last barn differed from the rest in a couple of ways: It was made of sawn timber and built via square rule. Circa 1880, the age of this CG no doubt explains the former differences.

[img]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/100_8837.jpg[/img]



At 36 x 36, this square, gable-entry barn was comprised of 4 bents laid out on 12-foot centers.

This building also lacked adequate longitudinal bracing, exhibiting the same diagonal plank-style bracing as in the first barn. But this barn appeared to have had no racking issues, past or present. Oddities in this building were full-length, hand-hewn purlins (and these 36’ long members were the only hewn material). And Jim Derby noted that despite a later construction period and circular-sawn timbers, this barn still had riven pegs holding the joinery.

And we found a fail! (Attention Ken Hume!) Jim Derby posed for the camera:


[img]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/101_0009.jpg[/img]




There were many other details in all the buildings and I hope the other members will share their thoughts and fill in the gaps for all of us. In short, the buildings kept us busy w/ questions and observations. …And it was really nice to meet other like-minded building enthusiasts. Thanks all!!


Tour participants:

L to R: Don Perkins, Tim Beal, Jim Rogers, Jim Derby and Will Truax

[img]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/101_0006.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/mainebarns/101_0006-1.jpg[/img]

Hi Everyone, It was a fun tour. I rarely see planks used as bracing so that was very interesting to see in two of the three barns. There are endless variations in the construction details!

I just like to be nice and clear...The flail did not go with the 1880s circular sawn barn we were in. I knew I should have smiled!

The evidence of the drill holes in the foundation granite and cut nails in the second barn indicated construction after 1830, not an 18th century barn.

I will gladly help anyone who wants to set up a barn tour, any where, any time, even if I cannot attend.

Jim

Jim, there is the possibility of the barn being moved and placed on the newer stone? Is there any for sure way of knowing. Maybe Don would have some input form the fellow related to the original builder. Documents in town records? The present owner said the house across the road was moved from up the hill down next to the road and he moved it back to where it sets now, the gambrel roof house across the road was his.

I am under the impression the 2x8 bracing was an improvement too take stress off the connecting girts. In the last and newest barn the brace/strut runs from the post to the sill and has no bearing on the girts. So I am wondering if the older the barn the more likely it is to have post to girt bracing?

The first barn was built from recycled material, or some of it, suggesting a newer date along with pencil layout to help back up the theory. The 2x8 bracing would go along with the theory.

The fourth barn, the one in Bucksport, has inboard bracing/struts on all posts running from the post to the lower girt. This barn I happened to find on my way to the tour, a mysterious coincidence. It also expands the region of CG barns to the Down East area.

The tour was nice and worth the 450 mile round trip. Can it be lumped into a MTBRG barn tour, Jim? Tim

Hi Guys,

I am impressed with your findings and envious that I was not able to attend. It seems that you are now in the process of establishing hard facts about this frame style and hopefully in due course an informed article will follow.

We need to give some consideration as to how this kind of information can be published / shared - possibly password secured Adobe Acrobat ?

Regards

Ken Hume

Guys:

Tim's comments got me to thinking... Maybe the first barn (w/ brick house) is newer than we'd thought. Maybe it wasn't scribed: I don't remember seeing any marriage marks. And you say the pencil layout is curious... and remember that one housing on a post?

Could it be this barn was built from hewn timber from a previous building? And it was reconfigured via square rule??? I'm also remembering the wall w/ the sawn posts... which I'd assumed were replacements. ????

Or do you guys remember seeing obvious scribed characteristics ???

We just don't know about this stuff!

The Bucksport find was great timing, Tim!

Damn it...(hello edit function!) I'm just remembering too the fact that it's odd to have such a large barn in the middle of town... I think that barn was moved there at some point.

Writing an article for the paper is going to be a challenge w/ all this unknown stuff.

Don, I was hoping for a response on that. I sure someone will get to it. The yellow, in town, first barn was scribed. The odd housing was just that, odd, I see them in buildings up here repeatedly and it makes me wonder.

Do you remember the orientation of the first and second barns? The second had and needed more work on one side, I'm wondering if it's the same side as the first which had all the post replaced.

As a side I am going to look at a side entry English barn I have seen only in passing, a fellow called wanting to have it looked at, it needs fixing. And it's local. Tim

Tim:

OK, if that first barn was indeed scribed, what was all the pencil about and where were the marriage marks? I see what you mean on that odd housing. I remember that post w/ the housing was 9 x 9, while the post on the opposite was 7 1/2...

Orientation... you mean referencing, right? The rooflines of both barns share an east/west axis. According to my notes and recordings, referencing on the first barn faced east (looking toward the rear of the barn). It was just the opposite on the second one (west).

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the replaced sides: the first had the sawn posts on the north side. The north side of the second barn faced the road. That 2nd barn needs help on both north and south. The owner replaced the sheathing on the south side.

The tour was worth the ride, new friends and old, and saw some unexpected stuff…

Which should really not be the desired expectation of studying vernacular buildings, the exploration of the every day is of as much, or more value.

Have to dissent on the plausibility of that first barn being SR’d – There was but the one housing in the frame. I’ve seen this on occasion before – one odd housing – it may have been a way of dealing with tearout or wane – in scribe you’re are free to deal little problems in a variety of ways - - I’ve sometimes wondered if these out of place housings might not have been the genesis, the idea, that spawned SR, a little seemingly mundane action, that simply got some clever carpenter thinking.

And there were marks identifying address, not the typical chiseled numbers (nor marriage marks, which bridge joinery and mark both pieces at once, something I’ve seen but a handful of times) but cursive handwriting in pencil. Which stands to reason with the pencil layout.

I don’t see it (pencil) much in frames that early, but the first domestic production of pencils began in 1812 in Concord Mass, in response to the English blockade, replacing a void in the market and an obviously preexisting demand – So it does fit the construction date.

The out of the ordinarily large village barn fits the owners pattern, a well appointed large brick house, he was making a statement and probably expecting, he was leaving a legacy.

I for one, think he did both and more, and am glad of it !