Hey Ken, et al.,

Ben, Jan and Jack, are all "Nuts," and I love them for it, but Ben is really the "character" in the group, and actually he and the team he works with is our "go to" PE, and have been for decades. It would be great if they added their voice to this conversation.

The "English" tying joint and its related species in other wood cultures of perimeter "3 way connections," can be very efficient and strong, but also in some forms very susceptible to failures (especially if modified.) Yet “689 years,” as in your example, is testament to wonderful holding qualities of this traditional joinery.

I believe that most “deaths” come from poor maintenance, and just as often, from unqualified intervention by novice carpenters of "fix it" folks. This intervention, whether contemporary, or in the chronological history of the frame, can often lead the compromise-demize of the structure, which is often taking more time to happen than the occupants of the structure are aware of.

The “3 way tying” joint in your example is clearly compromised, and has moved apart. Now when we get to your comment about “teazle tenon,” I became a bit confused? “Teazle tenons,” (sometimes call “threading tenons,” must pass through a minimum of two or more timbers, usually timbers perpendicular and/or juxtaposed to one another. I don't see a “teazle” in the photo, unless the tenon on the “lapping jetty” of the “jowel” passes through the “tie beam” and into the “principal rafter above.” I would note at this time that the “jetty” of the “jowel” can sometimes present with a “dovetail” along its side that will fit an appropriate “dovetail” mortise on the receiving side of the “rafter plate” (what you are calling a wall plate.) Have you ever discovered this type in your travels?

Now you of course saw the joint, but from the photo it presents more as a “racking” and maintenance failure over time, than it seems a “rotational” failure. I would agree that it does appear to have had a “novice” repair in its history, which may have included an improper replacement of the “rafter plate,” and the addition of the mentioned “metal strapping.” I often find such metal “reinforcements” added by “novice,” and or “unqualified” restorationists. A very few present as “legitimate” artifacts of the frames history, I agree, and as such preservation may be warranted, yet many more should just be removed, if given an opportunity during a proper restoration, as they undermine the validity of the original intentions of the House or Timberwright that built the structure. As for working...I would have to agree that only sometimes they do subjoin some ancillary security to this family of joints, but many are an unnecessary, an only redundancy if all other factors are addressed.

I agree that many of the engineering analysis of this joint may not be necessary, but the addition of hardware such as strapping is not appropriate for the family of joints when executed properly and with good means, methods and material. I make that statement both as a traditional Timberwright, and as a Restoration Artisan. I see many of these types of frames “modified” with good intentions by folks with perhaps good “timber framing” skills but no background in the ethical ethos of “Heritage Conservation and Restoration,” of architecture. As such, I may (or may not) keep such an artifact in a frame during a full restoration, as my task is not only to honor the original “Wright” of the frame, but to preserve the heritage skill sets that built fashioned this vintage fabric. As such, the metal is an unnecessary redundancy, if all is done well, in most cases.

I will note, that if Ben becomes a “pain in my back side,” (he seldom is or does) and insist that a metal or synthetic moment or drawing connection” is necessary, we will save the “artifact” if structurally sound, or replace with a surreptitious hidden reinforcement.

"Happy New Year" to all,

j