Marples No2200 square restoration questions

[MCTWoodwork]

Wow. Just wow. At least no one mentioned sharpening!!!

 

[mark w]

Do you actually do much woodwork?

 

[Sgian Dubh]

The other thing to remember is that when using college squares which weren't always treated with respect by everyone, it was a safer bet to use the inside faces which were a little less prone to being knocked or dented.
Personally I don't think I would have been happy being taught the "incorrect" way to use a square. The maker of these squares recommend and guarantee two faces, both on the inside.

The thing with communal set squares as supplied by FE colleges and similar is that they're generally no more than slightly interesting pieces of wood and metal with neither edge of the blade at a right angle to the stock.

As to being taught use of the square I'd guess if you'd been taught to use it the way Jacob, myself, and probably 98% of all woodworkers use a square to square lines across a piece or pieces of wood ganged together you would never have questioned whether you were happy about it, or not.

Certainly, I find how you were taught and how you continue to use a set square by habitually striking a line using the inside edge of the blade at least mostly awkward and rather odd. There are times when I find it's helpful or even best to use the inside edge of the square's blade to strike a line against a piece of wood, but for me that form usage is very rare indeed.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread: there's been more than enough nit-picking nonsense said in it for such a mundane topic. Slainte.

 

[RupertV]

Wow. Just wow. At least no one mentioned sharpening!!!

Patience, its still fairly early in the morning...

 

[Keith Cocker]

Dogmatic as usual Jacob
and you got a sharpening dig in as well, brilliant, you never let me me down
Another thing I was taught Jacob ( I was not ill advised) was to put your knife on or in the mark first and then move your square to it, you then don't need to see the line. I don't have a copy of the manufacturer's literature to hand, the catalogue blurb which described the squares I purchased as an apprentice certainly refered to the accurate faces. The rest of your assumptions about my training are also incorrect.
You're like a dog with a bone now and its getting boring, you do the same thing everytime you are challenged about anything, you cherry pick part of a reply, taking it out of context and away you go.
As I said previously, read the posts, you are wrong.

Really! A finer example of dogmatism than your post i have rarely seen!!!

 

[Jacob]

....
The other thing to remember is that when using college squares which weren't always treated with respect by everyone, it was a safer bet to use the inside faces which were a little less prone to being knocked or dented.

This is nonsense. If you knock the outside edge then the inside edge will move with it and be equally out of line. They are connected by the metal in between. Have another look at one!

Personally I don't think I would have been happy being taught the "incorrect" way to use a square.

Well you were! I hope you are not too disappointed, it's obviously a bit of a shock! Maybe take the day off and take it easy?

The maker of these squares recommend and guarantee two faces, both on the inside.

No they don't!*
Anyway thats enough fun for today - I've got better things to do.
*PS just checked - there is a BS3322 - 1981, long after the heyday of the wooden stocked Marples type square which most of us have, though I see that retro versions are still being made.
Makes no difference - the outside edge is for marking

 

[mark w]

The thing with communal set squares as supplied by FE colleges and similar is that they're generally no more than slightly interesting pieces of wood and metal with neither edge of the blade at a right angle to the stock.

As to being taught use of the square I'd guess if you'd been taught to use it the way Jacob, myself, and probably 98% of all woodworkers use a square to square lines across a piece or pieces of wood ganged together you would never have questioned whether you were happy about it, or not.

Certainly, I find how you were taught and how you continue to use a set square by habitually striking a line using the inside edge of the blade at least mostly awkward and rather odd. There are times when I find it's helpful or even best to use the inside edge of the square's blade to strike a line against a piece of wood, but for me that form usage is very rare indeed.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread: there's been more than enough nit-picking nonsense said in it for such a mundane topic. Slainte.

The thing is Richard I rarely if ever use a traditional carpenters square these days, I prefer engineers squares which are guaranteed accurate inside and out, at least the ones I buy are.
What I find odd is that a person who has taught students over the years seems to have failed to acknowledge and pass on to those students that there are recommended faces of square to use, regardless of whether you use them or not, you need to know the rules in order to break them, a famous furniture maker once said.
Nit picking for sure and not least by you and Jacob.
I bid you farewell from this thread.

 

[mark w]

This is nonsense. If you knock the outside edge then the inside edge will move with it and be equally out of line. They are connected by the metal in between. Have another look at one!

Well you were! I hope you are not too disappointed, it must be a shock!

No they don't!
Anyway thats enough fun for today - I've got better things to do.

 

[mark w]

Really! A finer example of dogmatism than your post i have rarely seen!!!

Good for you.

 

[mark w]

This is nonsense. If you knock the outside edge then the inside edge will move with it and be equally out of line. They are connected by the metal in between. Have another look at one!

Well you were! I hope you are not too disappointed, it must be a shock!

No they don't!
Anyway thats enough fun for today - I've got better things to do.

Oh no, he's slipped his leash, there's no stopping him now

 

[mark w]

Wow. Just wow. At least no one mentioned sharpening!!!

Jacob did mention it but I think we got away with it.

 

[Jacob]

I was wrong about the BS guarantee, on some later squares at least.
https://www.findmytool.co.uk/new-joseph-marples-square-trial1-review.php#gsc.tab=0
Makes no difference though - they are accurate both sides of the blade so you use the outside edge for marking in the normal manner, the inside edge for checking face/edge etc.
Some have brass both faces of the stock so also can be used to check inside 90º angles reasonably accurately.
https://workshopheaven.com/marples-beech-try-square/

 

[Nick_]

At least everyone is in agreement that my square is trashed and should be replaced. I could frame it though as a momento to my most controversial post from what I thought was a reasonably mundane question

Wishing you all a rain free weekend.

And with that, I’ll get my coat.

 

[Jacob]

At least everyone is in agreement that my square is trashed and should be replaced. I could frame it though as a momento to my most controversial post from what I thought was a reasonably mundane question

......

Well yes. Something of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch about it.
The patronising tone a bit tedious and the quasi religious delusion of "correctness" rather strange.
Have to ask, does anybody else use the "Mark Wrong" method? I sense no takers.
Don't all answer at once!

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Well yes. Something of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch about it.
The patronising tone a bit tedious and the quasi religious delusion of "correctness" rather strange.
Have to ask, does anybody else use the "Mark Wrong" method? I sense no takers.
Don't all answer at once!

I said I was out of this thread, and I did mean it. But I'm jumping back in just this once, Jacob to say that I think you're being a bit mean with that post. You'd made your point more than adequately in earlier posts and there was really no need to come come up with the "Mark Wrong" shot and the rest of the digs there to, presumably, have a bit of a go at mark w.

Now, I really am out of here. Slainte.

 

[TomGW]

I hesitate to ask, but what is the 'rod' method that you refer to Jacob? Thanks.

 

[Jacob]

I hesitate to ask, but what is the 'rod' method that you refer to Jacob? Thanks.

It's the normal trad way of laying out marks for a project, particularly if simply rectangular like most joinery and furniture. Basically a full size sectional drawing on a board, on to which the components are laid and stacked, with the marks taken off directly, with a pencil and a set square. First they need face and edge marks so that they can be laid up in opposite pairs, to avoid getting all left handers etc etc
Once the rod is completed all marks are taken from it directly, or measurements for cutting lists etc, no calculating required.
Once the marks are on one side or edge of the component they are then taken around with a marking square (using the outside edge!) and other gauge marks etc added.
It's very fast and can be very accurate, eliminating errors.
We had a good example here although of an unusual project which also included curves. https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/building-bridges.147261/
It features in all the old books to a large extent, but not often the new ones. Another forgotten art!

 

[Jacob]

I said I was out of this thread, and I did mean it. But I'm jumping back in just this once, Jacob to say that I think you're being a bit mean with that post. You'd made your point more than adequately in earlier posts and there was really no need to come come up with the "Mark Wrong" shot and the rest of the digs there to, presumably, have a bit of a go at mark w.

Now, I really am out of here. Slainte.

Oh well, he was being a bit belligerent! And relentless - he was accusing you too of nit picking and being ignorant of his imaginary "rules"!

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

It's the normal trad way of laying out marks for a project, particularly if simply rectangular like most joinery and furniture. Basically a full size sectional drawing on a board, on to which the components are laid and stacked, with the marks taken off directly, with a pencil and a set square. First they need face and edge marks so that they can be laid up in opposite pairs, to avoid getting all left handers etc etc
Once the rod is completed all marks are taken from it directly, or measurements for cutting lists etc, no calculating required.
Once the marks are on one side or edge of the component they are then taken around with a marking square (using the outside edge!) and other gauge marks etc added.
It's very fast and can be very accurate, eliminating errors.
We had a good example here although of an unusual project which also included curves. https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/building-bridges.147261/
It features in all the old books to a large extent, but not often the new ones. Another forgotten art!

It does get used a lot when laying out kit car chassies rails.

I made a Kit Lotus 7 a few years ago. We laid down a set of four 8 x 4 plywood sheets. Drew out the lay out.
So we could place the chassis box sections. So we could work out where the engine and gear box mounts are to be fitted.

 

[Sideways]

This thread is now locked.
I hope the offenders are proud of themselves.