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