Hello again;

After posting the above reply, there are a few more items that need to be addressed,

--P Smith--I have no idea what you are trying to put forward in your post when you mention three different measurements, could you clarify what it is that you mean by them in relation to layout--thanks in advance.

--MTF--Braces were never meant to be nailed to because as the building wracked due to wind pressures the nails would loosen, break or even loosen the siding, braces were always meant to work freely inside the board cladding

--Timbo--When working on hewn surfaced timbers, and doing tayout, a square certainly was used but was placed on chalk lines snapped on the rough surfaces, these lines represented a theoretical flat surface, and at no time did the hewer prepare a special smoother surface at any location as you mention in your post. Hewn surfaces are just that, rough, and in many instances twisted and very uneven, even from the hands of a very skilled axe man.

--Finally I have this observation about pinning wall braces. Over the years of observations, hardly any braces in historic frames were ever pinned this being for obvious reasons, as the building wracked due to wind forces, the little that pins passing through the tenon on a corner brace could due, would be practically nill. In the first place the tenon on the end of a braces does not extend into the cavity of a mortise any great distance and surely not far enough to prevent tear out under the tremendous strain generated by the wracking action of the building. Pinning might even crack the side of the vertical post where the braces's seating is located.

I realize though that in modern frames pinning the braces's ends is an accepted habit for what ever reason escapes me other than the aesethic look, and the lack of seatings for the ends of the braces as seen in modern construction methods
NH