Roger I should clarify,
I am not trying to say I think of gains and housings as inferior,
I am trying to convey the totally different cultural approach between two lands that might explain the reasoning behind their choice of layout.
I personally Like the look of square rule joinery. It has a certain aesthetic that is pleasing.
However, in the context of a Swiss style frame it would strike me as out of place and not fitting with the architecture. Housed joints of any kind are exceedingly rare in Swiss frames.
Your experience certainly sounds interesting, and I completely understand your bias against mapping.
However, here we are comparing apples and oranges. The mapping in the numerical scribe approach is quite different, because you are not measuring and figuring out based off of inconsistent stock. You establish a super straight reference, often in Swiss archtiecture this is a matter of fact because of how the timber is treated. But if working outside this context or in roof joinery where irregular timbers may be more likely, you establish a reference with a chalk line. Having this reference, you can easily determine where things belong.
Now I should explain the nature of the timber here. Traditionally, Ständerbau is executed in hand hewn timber. It is hewn to very precise dimensions, and if it is for a roof or a barn somewhere, left at that (slight undulation, but generally very accurate timber) If it is for a house, very long (like 2 to 2 1/2 meters) planes are used to make the timber faces very very straight and smooth. So this is the place these carpenters are working from.
I don't mean to come off saying American carpentry is inferior, I was trying to express the totally different way these two cultures approach the idea of framing. Neither one is wrong, they are just different. And I am all for people loving what they are a part of, what they are connected to, attached to, etc.
And again to be clear, I am not saying square rule or the use of housings is inferior. It's just a different approach, one the other culture referenced would never have come to for the reasons cited. It's not an attempt to look down on American culture and framing, it's an attempt to explore the spirit behind two very different solutions to the same problem. Both of which are wonderful accomplishments, both of which have their place in the world. Both of which deserve our admiration and respect.
Just as there are a number of reasons I could not rectify the scribe rule system with Swiss style framing and architecture, neither would I attempt to impose the Swiss system on American architecture and framing. The way an American frame is designed, like Roger points out, a housing is a very very good idea. Not only that, the way these frames are organized the square rule system looks -right- and pleasing.
This isn't an attempt to look at the various methods mentioned -scribe rule, square rule, half scribe, numerical scribe- and decide which is better. It's an attempt to look deeply at what is going on behind the scenes, what the small factors are that affected their development, why it is done this way.
