Sash bar dimensions for historical windows

[Jacob]

Yes, you can get a mitre templet for the ones that are missing the flat and this is going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Here's my little set of planes which I use for windows and the matching templets for them, all are stamped No.178 5/8 and the pair of planes have No.1 and No.2 on them as you would expect. Each plane has its own matching templet form the pair. Plane No.1 fits one templet only and plane No.2 fits the other templet only .

Both planes are No.178 and one makes thicker glazing bars with the flat fillet and the other makes pointy, thin glazing bars.


View attachment 164843View attachment 164844View attachment 164845View attachment 164846

And for a bit of fun, here's my scribing plane too.Bought off the bay of flea a while back, shame it doesn't fit the sash planes properly though.

View attachment 164847

The specialist sash tools would be following the trade and not leading it, as the ordinary rebate plane and ovolo would have been the top of the agenda for most makers. Hence the planes are still commonly found as there were so many in use, but the specials are relatively rare. And to be realistic - not that essential.

 

[RogerS]

.....

For me the more important visual clue to a window being old, is the actual width of the glazing bar. .....

Bang on the money, there. These I put into our gaff.

 

[Jacob]

......

For me the more important visual clue to a window being old, is the actual width of the glazing bar. In many cases they are a lot narrower and far more elegant than their modern equivalents. Some glazing bars I have seen, with "lambs tongue" mouldings, have been narrow enough to have lost the small fillet where the two mouldings would come together - so reducing the width of the bar and stopping it finishing flush with the styles and rails

Early windows had fatter gazing bars, later got finer as tools/machines made this possible, later again got fatter as glass panes got larger/thicker/heavier and bigger rebates needed in late Victorian/Georgian windows.
The lost fillet on the lambs tongue could be echoed by tapered glazing fillet leading to a very thin edge, but not common and not durable I guess.

 

[Adam W.]

The specialist sash tools would be following the trade and not leading it, as the ordinary rebate plane and ovolo would have been the top of the agenda for most makers. Hence they are still commonly found as there were so many in use, but the specials are relatively rare. And to be realistic - not that essential.

They aren't specialist sash planes. The 178 is Mathieson 5/8 x 1 3/4 gothic, which is a very normal pair of sash planes.

Edit:
It also looks like 5/8 x 1 3/4 is Mathieson's most popular size in 1899 if the number of profiles which were available for that particular size of glazing bar is anything to go by, but that's purely conjecture on my part and we wouldn't want speculation to get in the way of any actual facts now, would we?

 

[Bristol_Rob]

From my English Heritage book on Timber:

 

[Jacob]

They aren't specialist sash planes. The 178 is Mathieson 5/8 x 1 3/4 gothic, which is a very normal pair of sash planes.


View attachment 164849
Edit:
It also looks like 5/8 x 1 3/4 is Mathieson's most popular size in 1899 if the number of profiles which were available for that particular size of glazing bar is anything to go by, but that's purely conjecture on my part and we wouldn't want speculation to get in the way of any actual facts now, would we?

My idle conjecture is that Mathieson (and others?) effectively standardised these sizes and patterns but they were being made, with variations, well before this, and throughout, without necessarily having the sophisticated kit as seen in Mathieson catalogue https://www.hackneytools.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/EnglishSashPlanesbyDavidNelson.pdf
5/8 x 1 3/4 seemed to be the most recommended by conservation officers but I found myself having to point out often that the old glazing bars in front of them were in fact not that size.
Locally 9/16 x 1 3/4 ogee seemed common and other details often surprisingly slender such as meeting rails at only 3/4" even in sizeable windows but small-paned, where the structure relies on the lattice of frame plus vertical through glazing bars.
Another common design was without mouldings at all but bevels instead - sometimes with quite refined details down to 1/2 x 1 1/2" - finishing at 1/8" or so either side.
Can't take anything for granted!

 

[Jacob]

A few sash detail variations here.
On the left my most used default 14x44mm.
On the right some big ones from a window in County Mayo - the original and a copy.
Copied the easy way - by making my own spindle cutters

 

[Adam W.]

That's a great photo.

 

[Doug71]

Yeah great photo, I do enjoy removing 100+years worth of paint off old mouldings and finding what they actually look like!

 

[Jacob]

Yeah great photo, I do enjoy removing 100+years worth of paint off old mouldings and finding what they actually look like!

Yep - if you want something to last forever just keep slapping on the paint!
Although these are all from failed windows where there hadn't been quite enough slapping on in parts.
Worst is to strip them and slap on modern paint - then they won't do another 10 years, if they are lucky. It's curtains. There's a coincidence!
My theory is that modern paints have been the kiss of death for external timber joinery.

 

[steve355]

Out of interest, does anyone own a sash coping gouge?

 

[toolsntat]

Out of interest, does anyone own a sash coping gouge?

Yes, but never got around to using one yet.
Cheers, Andy

 

[johnnyb]

any little gouge will work. Best if its in cannel but at a push any. small because that will then do all the curves.

 

[Adam W.]

Out of interest, does anyone own a sash coping gouge?

Yes.

 

[Jacob]

I think a specific "sash coping gouge" is just a tool makers speculative venture which very few people bothered with.
A normal 'incannel" gouge does it, mainly because nobody bothered with that difficult full scribed shoulder sometimes demonstrated. It's a machine joint.
Is "incannel" a real word or something recently made up?

 

[steve355]

I think a specific "sash coping gouge" is just a tool makers speculative venture which very few people bothered with.
A normal 'incannel" gouge does it, mainly because nobody bothered with that difficult full scribed shoulder sometimes demonstrated. It's a machine joint.
Is "incannel" a real word or something recently made up?

I’m just interested in the specifics of how these tools worked and were used to improve the productivity of the joiners, making windows back in the day. Of course, the job can be done with a standard gouge, or coping, saw or whatever.

The sash coping chisels had a depth stop on them, I’m interested to know exactly what the depth of that depth stop was, if possible in relation to the sash template that it was used with. And therefore, maybe it provides some clues as to exactly how the gouge was used. I don’t think anybody knows.

There’s a diagram in David Nelsons, booklet about sash tools, however, it is clearly wrong. Can’t blame him though, the method of usage of all these tools in practice has been lost in the mists of time.

 

[Jacob]

I’m just interested in the specifics of how these tools worked and were used to improve the productivity of the joiners, making windows back in the day. Of course, the job can be done with a standard gouge, or coping, saw or whatever.

The sash coping chisels had a depth stop on them, I’m interested to know exactly what the depth of that depth stop was, if possible in relation to the sash template that it was used with. And therefore, maybe it provides some clues as to exactly how the gouge was used. I don’t think anybody knows.

There’s a diagram in David Nelsons, booklet about sash tools, however, it is clearly wrong. Can’t blame him though, the method of usage of all these tools in practice has been lost in the mists of time.

Peter Follansbee having a go here.
https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2020/10/07/sash-making/But he doesn't know how to make sash windows.
Just because the tools exist doesn't mean they were any use - just as our modern makers and dealers desperately promote expensive kit which nobody really needs. I mention no names!

the method of usage of all these tools in practice has been lost in the mists of time.

Not quite. You get a good idea of how things were done by pulling apart examples and looking at the details and tool marks. Best if you have a woodburner and you have to cut up and separate every little bit of that old window/door and look at it in the process.

 

[Adam W.]

 

[Jacob]

Interesting!
I've dismantled 100s of sash windows but never seen that scribed shoulder except on later machined scribes.
Also I've never seen a sash plane which does moulding and rebate in one.
Good "idea" but they obviously didn't use them on most of the samples I posted above. Are they common at all?
And I'm pretty sure that doing moulding/rebate separately is easier (same amount of work/ wood removed but using two planes instead of one). You'd need a separate rebate plane anyway, for the top meeting rail without a moulding.
He doesn't have the faintest idea about marking up.
You don't ripsaw boards on the edge of a bench.
You cut mortices first before moulding/rebating.
He doesn't know how to use a mortice chisel.
Tenons generally sawn and not split.
You don't "measure" anything "from" the assembled frame - that way madness lies! -
Everything is marked up 100% in the square from the fully detailed rod, on cut-to-length pieces, before any work us done. It's very accurate, you can order or cut all the glass to size even before you do any woodwork, even with tiny 5mm deep glazing rebates!
Fairly amateurish video I didn't watch it all the way through.
He's deduced/guessed at how things were done, based on his idea of how some old tools might have been used, but he's obviously never pulled apart much old joinery.
Unless they all did things very differently in America!

 

[steve355]

Peter Follansbee having a go here.
https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2020/10/07/sash-making/But he doesn't know how to make sash windows.
Just because the tools exist doesn't mean they were any use - just as our modern makers and dealers desperately promote expensive kit which nobody really needs. I mention no names!


Not quite. You get a good idea of how things were done by pulling apart examples and looking at the details and tool marks. Best if you have a woodburner and you have to cut up and separate every little bit of that old window/door and look at it in the process.

I’ve come across several examples of sash bar joints like this:

To me this looks like a joint that was made with a combination of a template and a sash coping gouge with a depth stop. It may not have been commonly done, being a “better” joint than the traditional mating method of sash bars, but more bother to do, and the customer can’t tell the difference. Being uncommon would explain the small number of sash coping gouges on the market these days.

This is why I’m interested in the detail of these tools.