Sash bar dimensions for historical windows

[Jacob]

I have, but it seems incredulous that all the books show it and clearly many around here were taught it and use it. So I can’t help thinking I must be doing something wrong, but it’s very difficult to see what that might be.

It’s so weak that even if I hadn’t popped that bit off by mistake with the chisel, I could push it off with my thumb, in softwood.

I’m now going to turn that little practice joint into a regular haunched tenon.

see edit to previous post.
To put it another way - haunched M&T is in all the books as a commonplace joint for all manner of frames.
The franked "reversed" haunch seems to be viable only with scribed joint and is a special application, if you have the kit to do it with and want to save a few seconds.
Interesting thread this, I knew nothing about frankenstein joints previously!
PS or to put it another way - franking is a way to avoid having to chop a mortice for a haunch, but scribing instead.

 

[mouldy plane]

I have, but it seems incredulous that all the books show it and clearly many around here were taught it and use it. So I can’t help thinking I must be doing something wrong, but it’s very difficult to see what that might be.

It’s so weak that even if I hadn’t popped that bit off by mistake with the chisel, I could push it off with my thumb, in softwood.

I’m now going to turn that little practice joint into a regular haunched tenon.

Hi Steve. I'm sorry things aren't going so well. I'm afraid what is causing your problem is that you don't appear to have left any protruding waste on your stile. This would make the franking stable . I'm also concerned that you have mitred the stile. This should be left cut square and projecting under the rail a bit deeper than the depth of your mould. I sympathise with your predicament. It is so hard to visualise these processes when you have not received instruction at the bench so to speak.

 

[niall Y]

I would just pop the broken piece back with a bit of super-glue, The old rhyme runs - " If it wasn't for filler and glue, what would us poor joiners do ".
There are often unseen flaws in timber that only become apparent when you cut into it . I had a length of skirting once that had cup -shake running through part of it. which, when I cut a piece off, this promptly fell in two.

 

[Jacob]

I would just pop the broken piece back with a bit of super-glue, The old rhyme runs - " If it wasn't for filler and glue, what would us poor joiners do ".
There are often unseen flaws in timber that only become apparent when you cut into it . I had a length of skirting once that had cup -shake running through part of it. which, when I cut a piece off, this promptly fell in two.

or as they say "a joiner covers his tracks"

 

[mouldy plane]

Hi mp, thanks for the advice. I must be doing something wrong then. I just tried to cut my very first franked joint. I was working on the stile, I did the mortise. It seemed the next thing to do was to create the glazing rebate with the sash filister and the moulding. Then all I need to do is to mitre the moulding at the appropriate place and pare off the ovolo next to the franking bit.

When I did this I’m sure I wasn’t careful enough, but the franking bit just popped off. It would, given the grain at that point it is extremely weak.

I must have got this wrong somehow.

View attachment 166036

 

[mouldy plane]

Hi Steve. I knew I had a picture somewhere. It's not quite the same set up as yours as I was using a cove and astragal mould as apposed to an ovolo, and this was mitred instead of scribed, but the franking procedure is just the same

 

[steve355]

Hi Steve. I'm sorry things aren't going so well. I'm afraid what is causing your problem is that you don't appear to have left any protruding waste on your stile. This would make the franking stable . I'm also concerned that you have mitred the stile. This should be left cut square and projecting under the rail a bit deeper than the depth of your mould. I sympathise with your predicament. It is so hard to visualise these processes when you have not received instruction at the bench so to speak.

Luckily these joints I’m doing are on some stock a few inches long, to learn the joint before trying it on the actual stiles that I have planed up to make the sash.

Ive re-read the section of the book which covers mitering the rails, and yes I got it wrong. But now I understand how the sash template is used - the stile is left square and the rail uses the sash template to help get the coping on the ovolo to be accurate.

i will try another franked joint later leaving waste on the stile, as you recommend. I presume this waste is sawn off one the sash is fixed (pinned ?)

it is really hard to visualise these joints with only a few old books to help. Luckily there are a bunch of old blokes here who are helping me learn!

 

[steve355]

Oh I see! (The pic) Perfect, thanks.

 

[Jacob]

Luckily these joints I’m doing are on some stock a few inches long, to learn the joint before trying it on the actual stiles that I have planed up to make the sash.

Ive re-read the section of the book which covers mitering the rails, and yes I got it wrong. But now I understand how the sash template is used - the stile is left square and the rail uses the sash template to help get the coping on the ovolo to be accurate.

Not sure about that! I've never used anything called a sash template, nor sure what one is and have never felt the need. I think it is another component of the special sash tool system devised by Mathieson and others. Sells more tools - just look at their amazing catalogues!
Yes to leaving stuff over long, both ways. Called "horns" on stiles, or head of a door frame. They protect the thing whilst it's being moved about and gets trimmed off prior to installation. Tenons long too and trimmed back when the frame is finished

 

[HOJ]

When I did this I’m sure I wasn’t careful enough, but the franking bit just popped off. It would, given the grain at that point it is extremely weak.

I must have got this wrong somehow.

I would suggest a better quality piece of timber in the first instance, there is risk of frustration setting in if your are just using "scraps"


@Doug71 posted this image from a book in a previous thread, may also help

 

[steve355]

Not sure about that! I've never used anything called a sash template, nor sure what one is and have never felt the need. I think it is another component of the special sash tool system devised by Mathieson and others. Sells more tools - just look at their amazing catalogues!
Yes to leaving stuff over long, both ways. Called "horns" on stiles, or head of a door frame. They protect the thing whilst it's being moved about and gets trimmed off prior to installation. Tenons long too and trimmed back when the frame is finished

These newfangled tools from around 1850, they’ll never catch on.

 

[Jacob]

These newfangled tools from around 1850, they’ll never catch on.

Well they didn't quite did they? The scribing plane* seems to be a very rare object and the other specialised stuff not particularly common. I think they came late and were being rapidly superceded by machines.
Non specialised ovolo and the rebate planes probably did the bulk, along with a wide variety of beads, 1/4 rounds and often just bevels.
Just guess work I know.
One detail I kept spotting in old work were marks in glazing rebates not unlike the roller marks you'd expect with a planer, but angled slightly. Some sort of machine?
But no, I realised they were the chatter marks of normal skewed rebate plane being worked hard and fast. Easy to replicate if you just work hard at it and get the sound of the plane zipping through the wood. I expect you could get the same with a moulding plane which would make sense of the 2 plane option, one for the hard work and zip marks and the other for fine finishing.
The other 2 plane option for slightly different mouldings with one for nibless glazing bars, I reckon could also be uncommon and I think a lot of work might have ended up being done by plane no.2 alone, which would account for some details encountered which I didn't quite understand, not having twigged that 2 planes was an option.

*PS the "franked" design in the book and mentioned by @HOJ and @mouldy plane seem to be a halfway house, not needing the scribing plane but hanging on to the no haunch design, for no good reason that I can see.
n.b. What would you actually do with the template, what use is it?

 

[steve355]

Well they didn't quite did they? The scribing plane* seems to be a very rare object and the other specialised stuff not particularly common. I think they came late and were being rapidly superceded by machines.
Non specialised ovolo and the rebate planes probably did the bulk.
Just guess work I know.
One detail I kept spotting in old work were marks in glazing rebates not unlike the roller marks you'd expect with a planer, but angled slightly. Some sort of machine?
But no, I realised they were the chatter marks of normal skewed rebate plane being worked hard and fast. Easy to replicate if you just work hard at it and get the sound of the plane zipping through the wood. I expect you could get the same with a moulding plane which would make sense of the 2 plane option, one for the hard work and zip marks and the other for fine finishing.
The other 2 plane option for slightly different mouldings with one for nibless glazing bars, I reckon could also be uncommon and I think a lot of work might have ended up being done by plane no.2 alone, which would account for some details encountered which I didn't quite understand, not having twigged that 2 planes was an option.

*PS the "franked" design in the book and mentioned by @HOJ and @mouldy plane seem to be a halfway house, not needing the scribing plane but hanging on to the no haunch design, for no good reason that I can see.
n.b. What would you actually do with the template, what use is it?

The template, as shown in my picture above , is used to mark up the scribe on the rail. It fits over the moulding and allows a scribe at 90deg to be created accurately. I imagine that the brass ended templates, such as mine above, could be used to actually make the scribing cut, rather than just mark, in conjunction with a gouge and a chisel.

I think generally you are probably right about the lateness of these tools to the party. Even once machines had been invented there would have been plenty of workmen whose job it was to make one off windows or repair windows. These tools also reduce the level of skill needed by the user by making it relatively foolproof to create an accurate scribe - thus reducing the cost of the employee.

For transoms and mullions, where a long coped cut is required, the scribing plane looks like a useful labour saving device.

 

[toolsntat]

*PS the "franked" design in the book and mentioned by @HOJ and @mouldy plane seem to be a halfway house, not needing the scribing plane but hanging on to the no haunch design, for no good reason that I can see.

You're not quite understanding this bit are you Jacob?
It is a haunch, yes, in a different direction compared to the type you are used to but non the less it serves its purpose to resist any movement of the joint laterally.
By the franked method the amount of timber on the outer edge of the mortise is greatly increased and thus improves the "shear " strength of the "short" grained section does it not?
This has been pointed out in the conversation.
Perhaps you are able to execute a sample of this franked joint to help you understand it better ?

Cheers, Andy

 

[Jacob]

You're not quite understanding this bit are you Jacob?
It is a haunch, yes, in a different direction compared to the type you are used to but non the less it serves its purpose to resist any movement of the joint laterally.
By the franked method the amount of timber on the outer edge of the mortise is greatly increased and thus improves the "shear " strength of the "short" grained section does it not?
This has been pointed out in the conversation.
Perhaps you are able to execute a sample of this franked joint to help you understand it better ?

Cheers, Andy

No sorry that doesn't make any sense particularly.
Normal haunch tenon as used everywhere seems a much better joint.
The sample from my box (earlier post) shows a fully scribed joint which is different again and does make some sense in that if you have the kit it could be faster, but nevertheless a slightly inferior joint with a much reduced tenon. Though good enough obviously, as it was still together in my scrap box!

 

[Jacob]

The template, as shown in my picture above , is used to mark up the scribe on the rail. It fits over the moulding and allows a scribe at 90deg to be created accurately.....

I've always done this freehand with an incannel gouge. No prob, I see no need for the template. Nor did most other joiners I guess - judging by the small number of these special tools generally still around.

 

[mouldy plane]

No sorry that doesn't make any sense particularly.
Normal haunch tenon as used everywhere seems a much better joint.
The sample from my box shows a fully scribed joint which is different again and does make some sense in that if you have the kit it could be faster, but nevertheless a slightly inferior joint with a much reduced tenon. Though good enough obviously, as it was still together in my scrap box!

Don't worry about it Andy. We know the physical evidence is out there. Maybe the penny will drop some day!

 

[Jacob]

Don't worry about it Andy. We know the physical evidence is out there. Maybe the penny will drop some day!

But I have different physical evidence!
This particular penny not likely to drop I think!

 

[johnnyb]

I think steve355 is very nearly at the point where its definitely best to make the sash. it adds a little stress to not make a ****oo and allows you to run through the whole process learned upto now. I would suggest make spares for every bit( basically 3 bits) and make and mark as you go along(obviously only cut the 4 needed) this stage is important as it also removes the pressure a bit.

 

[mouldy plane]

Just some thoughts on sash templates and scribing that might help you Steve. I have studied this subject for many years, and carried out all sorts of experiments to work out how, or even if, these templates were used. It's my experience that possibly about 90 percent of the templates I have examined (probably running into hundreds) look to to have had very little, if any use. They do appear to have been around for a long period of time, probably from at least 1800, and possibly a bit earlier, so they were not rare. What is interesting to work out is if they were not using them, how did they form the scribes accurately? I'm sure they were firstly cutting a mitre, then using this as a guide line to cut the scribe. The problem area for them was how to cut the glazing bar scribe. In todays workshop it is easy, we can just use a coping saw, but coping saws don't seem to make an appearance in joiners kit until some time after about 1910. So what were they using to cut the scribe? I'm absolutely sure they used scribing gouges. This is easily done on the scribes between the rails and stiles, but when it comes to the bars it is not so straight forward. The cut must be supported to prevent breakout. There were special gouges produced with a built in wooden stop, but these are relatively rare. I made a discovery in an abandoned workshop one day that may shed light on at least one method used. Laying on the bench was a piece of 1" softwood which had a reverse profile of a sash bar worked into it. at one end, a screw had been used as a stop, and at the other end of the board was evidence of hundreds of marks where a bench knife had been driven into the other end of the glazing bar to hold it firm. I strongly suspect this board was used to support the bar while the ends were scribed with the appropriate gouge. I still have my grandfathers tool chest that was originally put together by a previous joiner in about 1870. it contains a set of scribing blocks complete with the number 1, and 2 sash ovolo planes, also a matching scribing gouge. It is interesting to note that the planes, and the scribing blocks appear to be virtually unused, while the scribing gouge has seen what looks to be many hundreds of hours use. I cant help but feel the scribing templates were mostly a tool merchants sales ploy, and experienced old time joiners just used the methods they had refined over a couple of hundred years.