Even'n Roger,

Tim and I have established that my observation are just that, mine. I speak from my personal experience and the traditions I have been part of, what I have observed and of course, what I have been able to glean through research.

I don't have any great concern with this, but it is not the way it was done, and as a historical timber wright I will always speak against this as being what should be taught to younger wrights. Have I sawn out peg stock, yes, do I have the experience in assessing a piece of wood to do so, I believe I do, but I wouldn't want that method to be the first choice, nor do I think many young wrights have the experience to cut certain corners.

Why wouldn't you use the tool that was meant for this, and in the manner it was meant to be used? Iron draw pins are driven to the point of seating the joint. Now, if there are two trunnel holes, you may drive the second peg with little effort. If only one hole, you remove the draw pin and replace it with a peg, and because the drawn pin has seated well the joint, you trunnel does not work as hard entering the joint.

This statement seams, at it core, to be sound in reasoning and one should always go as easy as they can, while still getting the joint well fit. If a trunnel is damaged, of course it must be replaced.

I will have to challenge you on your view that this is "completely wrong," because just because a tenon has begun to falter at the striking end, does not mean you have damaged the entire trunnel. Quite the contrary, if a trunnel is beginning to falter and you continue to strike it without the repair, you will damage it to a point that it will have to be replaced. Nor does it mean you have damaged the bore. The goal is not to smash a trunnel into place, but we all know that some do fail. If they present with shear failure, of course they should be removed. However, if the trunnels is well made and of sound wood, trimming the striking end a wee bit is of no great concern. For your second point, "over driving defeats the purpose," I may be reading your meaning wrong. The trunnel should be sound of nature and not damaged. If so, then it does need to be remove and replaced.

I know that I have said this before, and will most likely have to state it again, but what I share in my writing and what I teach isn't a personal theory or idea of what a method should look like. It is hard in written form for the following to not sound verbose, but I'm not guessing at how something should be done, speculating on what was done, or even sharing my own concepts. Most of the time, I simply state facts of the craft through direct observation and teaching from Master wrights, and/or almost 40 years of rather intense research, of this craft, not only here, but within many other traditions. I don't make assumptions, I make observations about methodology and with substantial cross reference. I hope that gives me some credibility when I make a statement about technique. I don't believe we really disagree that much, but I will always challenge a position that is counter to traditions that have hundreds, if not thousand, of years of empirical validation. That's not to say you shouldn't experiment and examine your approaches. I for one, 40 years later, still have epiphanies to what I was being taught all those years in the past.

Regards, jay