Hi Francis,

Your welcome and correct...LOL...No such thing as a stupid question when sincerely asked…

If that is the format you like and your intended project parameters then you will be best served following the tool suggestions of that author and their plan…

In a sense, they are the “primary teacher and facilitator,” and deviating from their guidance is not in your best interest typically.

I see many DIYers trying to “change” or “modify” a plan they find, or they try to augment or adapt two styles into one. If there is a foundation of experience to draw from this isn’t a huge issue, but too many “think” they know enough (not knowing what they don’t know) when in reality they truly do not have enough experience and should wait until their experience in timber framing grows before attempting to modify a design or plan. I see this most in those coming from the construction industry and the hubris it tends to breed in modern builders...

Yes...that is a very good start and a common recommended starter set for timber framing. You can get by with just the smaller chisel if the budget is tight, however, the chisels employed on a project are often also the template for the mortise/tenon widths…

Here in the United States it is much less common yet more and more are converting and/or using both. Everything in the world is metric for the most part, including most tools and tooling. The only primary “island” of resistance is the United States, though that is changing rapidly as most industries (and the military) are virtually all metric now.

The “borneman” and related are the exception to the rule and understandable as they came from companies that are imperial users. However, most of the world is not...including modern framing squares in most regions of the world. For example, Steve Chapel still makes one of the best timber framing squares on the market (that's a personal bias I own) and, of course, Steve makes it in metric and imperial both, thus my square is 50 mm wide on the long arm and 40 mm wide on the narrow, which sets the parameters for templates used for all such sized mortise and tenon. It is a choice of course, and Imperial still dominates here in the United States for many (not all) Timberwrights…

As for construction plans, most actually are in metric as most timber frames are designed and built globally are outside the United States, with Asia still dominating the volume of frames built, which of course is all metric, as are there tools and most of Europe where the other lion’s share of timber frames are constructed. Case in point all of Makita, Mafell and related major companies only make metric tools and these must be modified and/or adapted to imperial.

Often here in the United States, there is a bias that forms because of the common books found on the subject, but by an industries standard and a global perspective of volume, most timber frames are actually metric. As another interesting example, if I open a CAD template its “go to” templates are always metric and have to be converted to imperial if a client requests that.

I am very active in many other traditional art forms, such as textiles, so the idea of having your own template made is a logical one that could serve you very well...

I do a fair amount of weaving, and still tailor most of my own clothing, thus templates and patterns are a mainstay of my daily life whether timber framing or creating a garment. Tailor templating (now a plastic sheet rather than goat vellum) is what I use for all my timber frame templates. In reality, for the last 25 years, I only layout joinery once for a timber frame project. These templates all get checked for there fit and balance before ever being scribed onto a timber. Thus, the target points on the snapped line of a timber (I use traditional Asian format line rule) indicates where a template is positioned. The traditional line rule systems are not to be confused with the modern modalities of what many call "line rule" which is completely different than the traditional context found in Middle Eastern and Asian modalities. "Modern edge rule” with snapped lines as employed now by many contemporary timber framers are an adaptation, have nothing to do with the traditional methods of "line rule" nor how "edge rule" was originally taught or used. Few of us left living that actually have been taught or apprenticed in the original context of "edge rule," and not the modern interpretation of it. When asked by students, my recommendation is learn "line rule" and "scribe/stereotomy," as these are the most acient and accurate forms of layout...

Cool website...and very interesting business. As you have learned, metric is seeping in everywhere...LOL!!!...from plywood (2.4mx4.8m) to machinery...it's all metric for the most part...

When I teach a workshop or deal with a client that has resistance to metric, I get the plethora of reasons why imperial is better (all unfounded of course) but once they actually work in it for any length of time, they never go back fully to imperial. Dealing with hole numbers like a millimeter (especially in timber framing) is so much easier than fractions...

Like I tell students and clients alike...don’t convert...or think of it that way…

Start using metric along with imperial and it just happens naturally. Another trick is to start thinking and “designing” in what some euphemistically is call the “metric foot,” which is 300mm long...thereby the “metric inch” is 25mm (actual inch is 25.4mm.) That little “mind trick” alone makes the concept of converting not only simple but natural. I still use the language of imperial talking in “feet and inches” so clients can relate to a discussion graphically about their project, but the project itself will still be metric in design and process.

LOL...exactly!!!

I design frames to zero tolerance in CAD, of course, but in reality I only have to worry about a whole increment of 1mm and thereby making measuring really easy as they are always a whole number…

Good Luck and do report in as your project progresses...