Marples No2200 square restoration questions

[Jacob]

Really? Read the posts you'll see.

Happy to explain if there is something you have misunderstood.
Go on, give us a clue!

 

[mark w]

Happy to explain if there is something you have misunderstood.
Go on, give us a clue!

No need for you to explain Jacob and I have not misunderstoodyou you. You were wrong, read back through the posts.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Jacob is wrong again and as usual he is dogmatically telling us all he`s right.

Can you please explain Jacob's errors for me, Mark?

After reading your comment I've double checked what Jacob's written and I can't spot any errors. My use of set squares and any tweaking pretty much mirrors what he's suggested. His tip, for example, about filing the outside edge of the blade if required is something I've done maybe once or twice in about fifty years of use of my most used square. It needed a bit of repair because decades of abrasion against the outside edge of the blade by a knife had worn a localised hollow in the area most used to mark parts: a localised hollow because it's seldom a marking knife needs to pass along the full length of a square's blade. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

Can you please explain Jacob's errors for me, Mark?

After reading your comment I've double checked what Jacob's written and I can't spot any errors. My use of set squares and any tweaking pretty much mirrors what he's suggested. His tip, for example, about filing the outside edge of the blade if required is something I've done maybe once or twice in about fifty years of use of my most used square. It needed a bit of repair because decades of abrasion against the outside edge of the blade by a knife had worn a localised hollow in the area most used to mark parts: a localised hollow because it's seldom a marking knife needs to pass along the full length of a square's blade. Slainte.

I see them as marking out tools only, not really for checking angles on a workpiece.
You can't do an inside right angle accurately as the outside edges are wood and steel.
You can't easily adjust the inside steel edge which could make one unsuitable for outside angle check,
Though they are used both ways, with errors ignored.
Maybe that's what confuses Mark?

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

I have done a few squares like the OP.
If the blade is pitted or delaminating it is nowt but scrap.

This one was bad. But the blade was good, ok rusty but sound.

Do not dismantle, as getting back square is a long and difficult task.

Seal the brass and wood with tape and cling film. Use a citric acid mix or a good rust converter and de-rust the blade.

This one a I used a Gun black solution to re-colour the blade.

Wire wool and "Meths." cleaned the brass and wood up.
A good bee's wax will keep it that way.

 

[mark w]

Can you please explain Jacob's errors for me, Mark?

After reading your comment I've double checked what Jacob's written and I can't spot any errors. My use of set squares and any tweaking pretty much mirrors what he's suggested. His tip, for example, about filing the outside edge of the blade if required is something I've done maybe once or twice in about fifty years of use of my most used square. It needed a bit of repair because decades of abrasion against the outside edge of the blade by a knife had worn a localised hollow in the area most used to mark parts: a localised hollow because it's seldom a marking knife needs to pass along the full length of a square's blade. Slainte.

Wow, even the great (no sarcasm, I genuinely hold you in high regard) Richard Jones advocates using the outside faces (or edges, your choice) of a traditional carpenters square. Oh well

 

[Jacob]

Wow, even the great (no sarcasm, I genuinely hold you in high regard) Richard Jones advocates using the outside faces (or edges, your choice) of a traditional carpenters square. Oh well

Are you still confused?
You use the outside edge of the steel blade for marking, with the inside edge of the brass faced stock against the workpiece. They are designed for this.
I can see how you might misunderstand this, from loose descriptions of usage. Would a drawing help?
How do you use them yourself? You have used one I presume?

 

[Doug71]

I gave up on woodworking squares years ago, I have 3 Marples, they look nice but none of them are square....

For me a square needs to be square no matter which edge you are working from, for example

Marking out, inside stock to outside blade.

Checking an edge is square or a cut is square, inside stock to inside of blade (looking for light shining through the gap).

Checking planer fence square to the bed or the frame I have just made is square, outside stock to outside blade.

I use an engineers square which is accurate and does all the above, they are cheap enough so I can't understand why anyone would settle for anything less or feel the need to spend £100+ on a red one

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Wow, even the great (no sarcasm, I genuinely hold you in high regard) Richard Jones advocates using the outside faces (or edges, your choice) of a traditional carpenters square. Oh well

Mark, I appreciate the reply and the kind words, but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I use a set square (some prefer try square) to square lines across a piece of wood by holding the brass face on the inside edge of the stock against a straight edge of the wood and strike a line against the outer edge of the blade with either a knife or a pencil. Marking a tenon's shoulder line is a typical example of such use. This method of using a set square is universal; it's also the methodology Jacob describes, which was why I was puzzled by your comment in the fist place.

It's rare to strike a line against the inside edge of the blade whilst holding the brass inside face of the stock against an edge because it's hard to get into the corner. I do use the inside edge/face of a set square to check for the squareness of material during, for example, facing and edging rough sawn material, checking the edge of sawn man made board, or checking squared timber supplied to me by others, e.g., machined material sent to the workshop by the wood machinist, and so on.

I guess the confusion and/or misunderstanding might continue, but I'm not quite sure why. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

For me basic marking is from the rod to the edge of the workpiece, with a plastic set square (or wood etc in the old days). Then this mark is taken around the workpiece with a Marples marking/set square. Impossible to use the inside edge because the stock would cover the previous mark. In any case you couldn't easily get your pencil/knife into the corner, as Richard says.
The outer edge avoids both these issues. I've been doing it this way since school (about 68 years ago by my reckoning!) though I didn't learn about the rod until much later (1982 to be precise!)

 

[Jacob]

I gave up on woodworking squares years ago, I have 3 Marples, they look nice but none of them are square....

For me a square needs to be square no matter which edge you are working from, for example

Marking out, inside stock to outside blade.

Checking an edge is square or a cut is square, inside stock to inside of blade (looking for light shining through the gap).

Checking planer fence square to the bed or the frame I have just made is square, outside stock to outside blade.

I use an engineers square which is accurate and does all the above, they are cheap enough so I can't understand why anyone would settle for anything less or feel the need to spend £100+ on a red one

Well yes the Marples type square is for marking only and not so good for checking things, other than the marks, though it does get used.
Easy to correct the outer edge of the blade if you want to use one. Only the outer edge matters and they are well designed for the purpose.

 

[mark w]

Mark, I appreciate the reply and the kind words, but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I use a set square (some prefer try square) to square lines across a piece of wood by holding the brass face on the inside edge of the stock against a straight edge of the wood and strike a line against the outer edge of the blade with either a knife or a pencil. Marking a tenon's shoulder line is a typical example of such use. This method of using a set square is universal; it's also the methodology Jacob describes, which was why I was puzzled by your comment in the fist place.

It's rare to strike a line against the inside edge of the blade whilst holding the brass inside face of the stock against an edge because it's hard to get into the corner. I do use the inside edge/face of a set square to check for the squareness of material during, for example, facing and edging rough sawn material, checking the edge of sawn man made board, or checking squared timber supplied to me by others, e.g., machined material sent to the workshop by the wood machinist, and so on.

I guess the confusion and/or misunderstanding might continue, but I'm not quite sure why. Slainte.

I guess it boils down to who you were taught by, although my tutors throughout were consistent. At school in wood work classes I was told to only use the inside "guaranteed" faces/edges, when I left school, working with my brother and other carpenters the same rule applied and finally at college when I did four years City & Guilds furniture design and making, yes you guessed it, use only the inside faces. I should stress this was in reference to the traditional carpenters square, the engineers squares we used were apparently guaranteed both inside and out.
When its been drummed into you and its what you've always done its not difficult. To me and not only me, it makes perfect sense to use the faces recommended by the manufacturer.

 

[Jacob]

I guess it boils down to who you were taught by, although my tutors throughout were consistent. At school in wood work classes I was told to only use the inside "guaranteed" faces/edges, when I left school, working with my brother and other carpenters the same rule applied and finally at college when I did four years City & Guilds furniture design and making, yes you guessed it, use only the inside faces. I should stress this was in reference to the traditional carpenters square, the engineers squares we used were apparently guaranteed both inside and out.
When its been drummed into you and its what you've always done its not difficult. To me and not only me, it makes perfect sense to use the faces recommended by the manufacturer.

You were wrongly advised - or possibly got it wrong under your own steam?
It is simply not possible to use the inside face, e.g. on the face of the workpiece to pick up from a mark already on the edge, as you would not be able to see the mark. It would be under the stock.
Also as mentioned above marking from the corner would be difficult anyway.
I'm sure the manufacturer would not have recommended it either - have you a reference to this?
It's not that surprising - hand woodwork went through a steep process of decline followed by a post WW2 revival, during which ways of doing things were not so much re-discovered, more re-invented, often badly. Consider sharpening, where the quick, easy, cheap, trad ways have been just about erased from history! Or the rod - which many seem to know nothing about even though it is absolutely fundamental and very traditional.
People complain about their old squares not being any good but it seems that they are trying to use them for jobs for which they were not designed. Not to mention not bothering to correct slight errors on the outside edge, easily corrected!

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I guess it boils down to who you were taught by, although my tutors throughout were consistent. At school in wood work classes I was told to only use the inside "guaranteed" faces/edges, when I left school, working with my brother and other carpenters the same rule applied and finally at college when I did four years City & Guilds furniture design and making, yes you guessed it, use only the inside faces. I should stress this was in reference to the traditional carpenters square, the engineers squares we used were apparently guaranteed both inside and out.
When its been drummed into you and its what you've always done its not difficult. To me and not only me, it makes perfect sense to use the faces recommended by the manufacturer.

Well, that sort of explains it. You were taught what I think of as unusual or unconventional practices. The attached video link pretty much demonstrates what I was taught, still use and have taught to scores of learners over the decades. I could criticise the demonstrator for a bit of sloppiness in picking up marks at the corner, for using a fat leaded pencil and, finally, for failing to set his rule on edge to eliminate parallax errors when reading off dimensions, all of which can lead to inaccuracy but what was shown was probably close enough for rough and ready chippy work.

The video is almost certainly produced for bench joinery/chippy apprentices probably on an NVQ (i.e., Not Very Qualified) pathway at an FE college or similar. Slainte.

 

[mark w]

Well, that sort of explains it. You were taught what I think of as unusual or unconventional practices. The attached video link pretty much demonstrates what I was taught, still use and have taught to scores of learners over the decades. I could criticise the demonstrator for a bit of sloppiness in picking up marks at the corner, for using a fat leaded pencil and, finally, for failing to set his rule on edge to eliminate parallax errors when reading off dimensions, all of which can lead to inaccuracy but what was shown was probably close enough for rough and ready chippy work. Slainte.

I've subsequently worked with people who have used the outside edges but always considered it poor practice, I'm not sure my teaching was unusual, just correct .
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.

 

[Jacob]

I've subsequently worked with people who have used the outside edges but always considered it poor practice, I'm not sure my teaching was unusual, just correct .

It was both unusual and incorrect.
I seem to have spent half my life marking up, basically stacks of components for sash windows, panel doors etc. On a big job it would be a day's work or longer. Your method would have been not merely difficult, but quite impossible.
n.b. from a rod, not measuring as per Richard's video, except on little jobs on the side possibly

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

Have you seen a guarantee ever?
PS I have made furniture too. Same processes, different product, much easier.
PPS I was taught on C&G carpentry and joinery course, by a highly skilled elderly retired joiner, from a tight syllabus established and developed over 100+ years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_and_Guilds_of_London_Institute

 

[mark w]

You were wrongly advised - or possibly got it wrong under your own steam?
It is simply not possible to use the inside face, e.g. on the face of the workpiece to pick up from a mark already on the edge, as you would not be able to see the mark. It would be under the stock.
Also as mentioned above marking from the corner would be difficult anyway.
I'm sure the manufacturer would not have recommended it either - have you a reference to this?
It's not that surprising - hand woodwork went through a steep process of decline followed by a post WW2 revival, during which ways of doing things were not so much re-discovered, more re-invented, often badly. Consider sharpening, where the quick, easy, cheap, trad ways have been just about erased from history! Or the rod - which many seem to know nothing about even though it is absolutely fundamental and very traditional.
People complain about their old squares not being any good but it seems that they are trying to use them for jobs for which they were not designed. Not to mention not bothering to correct slight errors on the outside edge, easily corrected!

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.

 

[Jacob]

Dogmatic as usual Jacob

No. Not dogmatic, just well taught and fairly experienced. Also under pressure of time to do things efficiently

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.

Cunning! But unconvincing and problematic. Also you'd have to be a bit of a contortionist. Would like to see a vid of this manouevre but I don't suppose anybody has made one

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.

I'll believe it when I see it!

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.

Challenged? In what way? You just don't know how to use a trad marking square and that's all there is to it.

 

[mark w]

No. Not dogmatic, just well taught and fairly experienced. Also under pressure of time to do things efficiently

Unconvincing and problematic. Also you'd have to be a bit of a contortionist.

I'll believe it when I see it!

Challenged? In what way? You just don't know how to use a trad marking square, that's all there is to it.

Hilarious reply Jacob.
Good boy, good dog, now sit, roll over, good boy.

 

[Jacob]

Hilarious reply Jacob.
Good boy, good dog, now sit, roll over, good boy.

Do you actually do much woodwork?