Youve got to be kidding

[lowell holmes]

Pop Wood has an add for a square and the price is $165. Who would spend that much for a square?

[Ray Selinger]

25 years ago I spent $125 for a Mitutoyo combination set and I thought I was getting a deal! Starretts were more and not as good. It was for work.

[Jim Koepke]

The most I have paid for a square is about $15. I wanted it because it was a small, ~3" blade, with a rosewood handle. My guess is it cost more than when it was new.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

I did pay $65 for a Starret and was happy with it. I still have it and it is superior to other squares I have.

[Bob Glenn]

I've made a couple out of cherry and oak. Lighter and easier to use. The degree of accuracy of the expensive squares is non-consequential at my level of woodworking.

[Jim Koepke]

The degree of accuracy of the expensive squares is non-consequential at my level of woodworking.

If a knifed line does not converge with a second line drawn with the square flipped it is likely accurate enough for most folks level of woodworking.

It is pleasant working with extremely accurate, high quality equipment. Currently my level of woodworking barely pays for what I do have. Maybe if I get a few high dollar commissions some fancier tools can be procured.

jtk

[Matthew Springer]

I would completely pay that much for a square. But only their square (or possibly a woodjoy). Their stuff is a joy to behold.

Funnily I came over to this tread directly from BlueSpruce thinking to myself "but I really could use a sliding bevel to go with it". I have a bunch of their dovetail chisels but the gateway drug is the marking knife. The tools are incredibly beautiful. My biggest issue is they don't seem to have a "give me one of everything" button.

[ken hatch]

Pop Wood has an add for a square and the price is $165. Who would spend that much for a square?

Me.

Vesper tools has several in that price range. I have a couple of his double squares and use them many times each day....Wonderful tools. While I do not have a Colen Clenton try square yet....mostly because I'm having a hard time deciding between She-Oak and Blackwood :). BTW, my Starretts do not cost a whole lot less and I would have a hard time doing much of anything without 'em.

As with most things in life you sometimes get what you pay for and a good square is worth the note.

ken

[Kees Heiden]

Whatever floats your boat of course, and have fun with it. In the mean time we should make absolutely sure for everyone reading this that you don't NEED a square like that to do good work. Maybe if you were outfitting a joint strike fighter (if there is anything square in that thing), but not for normal woodworking. Never.

[george wilson]

Kees,precisely my point in telling people that the best thing to do is LEARN skills,like grinding accurately,rather than rushing out to spend $1400.00 on a grinder. Too many get the idea that the skill is somehow in the tool.

I worked across the street from a music store for a year,and did all their guitar repairs. I was in the store frequently,having become friendly with the staff. There was an older guy who wore carpenter's clothes. Clearly a working man. He bought a new guitar EVERY WEEK,or so. I must have been there on at least 4 occasions when he bought yet another guitar,trading in the one he had bought a week before. What he really wanted was to be a better guitarist. Buying guitar after guitar wasn't the solution to his playing inability.

While in the museum,I made some of my own wooden squares,and made many of the pieces I have posted using a wooden square. I'll bet that many of the World's masterpieces in museums were made using simple wooden squares(and planes!)

It seems that some misunderstand my intent when I make a brief statement to "Learn a skill". I did spend many years working with others who were equipped with only the simplest of tools. The gunsmiths,especially,seemed to make a point of using the nearest to nothing they could to make a fine rifle. Tool collectors from Early American Industries remarked that the gunsmiths were working "In Elizabethan conditions". But,they had the skills to do their work quite well.

[steven c newman]

These seem to do just fine..
338110
You can see a few in the background.

Besides, some people spend more than that on a simple, little block plane, just because it is made from bronze......

[Mark Rice]

Pop Wood has an add for a square and the price is $165. Who would spend that much for a square?

I would never spend that much but I have a friend that would spend that much in a second.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

A good square is worth the money. When I had a cheap one I was never sure if it was me or the tool when a joint was out. Now I don't have to wonder.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

ETA: I should say I have not seen the ad, and don't know anything about that particular square. I think I paid about $80 for my Starrett combination square.

[ken hatch]

This thread got me to thinking, usually not a good thing.....A 6" Colen Clenton square with Rose She-Oak is on its way to Casa Chaos.

[george wilson]

I have about 4 of Chris Vesper's squares. But,they were from trading tools with him while he was staying with us.

The Clenton squares have a clever mechanism for getting the blade square again. However,I would never recommend brass blades. Or brass faced stocks,really. They are just too easy to nick. And they will tarnish from handling quite easily. If I wanted to make squares,I'd buy strips of blue 1095 spring steel,pre straightened,to make blades from.

[Andrew Hughes]

I have a starret no 61 square it's nice little tool.Its handy for checking my other squares with ya know a reference tool.Lots of my bench squares have been dropped to many times.

[Simon MacGowen]

$165. Who would spend that much for a square?

Me, not. But there are many woodworkers who love to spend on tools would. The list of things like this goes on and on and part of the story is woodworking and part consumerism. Like the $200K sports cars, these tools are made for certain segment of the market and many of them are under the so-called boutique tools category.

I recently came across a magazine (WOOD?) that sample tested three squares and the Starrett comb. square placed second behind a $12 square the reviewer picked up from a hardware store, in terms of squareness. The magazine's advice was to check the squareness even if it was a brand name tool. I wasn't surprised by that finding.

Edit - It's in a FW Feb 16 webvideo by its web producer.

Simon

[Derek Cohen]

I have about 4 of Chris Vesper's squares. But,they were from trading tools with him while he was staying with us.

The Clenton squares have a clever mechanism for getting the blade square again. However,I would never recommend brass blades. Or brass faced stocks,really. They are just too easy to nick. And they will tarnish from handling quite easily. If I wanted to make squares,I'd buy strips of blue 1095 spring steel,pre straightened,to make blades from.

I have three of Chris' squares: the tiny double square (and a Starrett version, which was a gift), and 4" and 7" squares (4" is perfect for small joinery, and 7" great for large joinery). The latter are essentially infilled machinist squares that are super accurate and made from hard, yet flexible steel. What I like about these squares is that they will never go out-of-true. Plus they are gorgeous to look at and hold. Very handily, they have an integral tab that makes it easier to balance in use with one hand, as the other hand is needed to wield the knife.

The Vesper squares replaced Clenton squares. I did not trust the brass blades not to wear or ding, and the fact that the angles could be tweeked was a disadvantage to me - who wants to check the accuracy of a square each time, and adjust it?

If I did not have these (they are expensive and I am fortunate to get a discount as Chris is a friend), I could buy cheaper machinist squares. Simple, accurate square that are ready to use when needed. No fussing with accuracy checks each time. Get on with the woodworking. It is the same philosophy I have for sharpening. KIS.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Simon MacGowen]

I could buy cheaper machinist squares. Simple, accurate square that are ready to use when needed. No fussing with accuracy checks each time. Get on with the woodworking. It is the same philosophy I have for sharpening. KIS.

Regards from Perth

Derek

+1.

An owner of 3 Vesper squares? Lucky you!

Simon

[bridger berdel]

I'll buy that $165 square- for $5 at an estate sale.....

actually, I have a drawer full of squares, and parts thereof. One Of These Days I'm gonna work out an accurate and efficient way of truing up combo square heads.

[Jim Koepke]

I'll buy that $165 square- for $5 at an estate sale.....

actually, I have a drawer full of squares, and parts thereof. One Of These Days I'm gonna work out an accurate and efficient way of truing up combo square heads.

It is actually very simple. One either side of the threaded apparatus that holds the blade in place are raised metal bosses (lands or other names may apply). If the angle of the beam (ruler?) to the head is greater than 90º, the one between the holding device and the work needs to have a little filed off. If the angle is less than 90º then the boss on the far side of the holding device needs to have a touch of metal removed. Use a file like an auger file with safe sides.

Also go slow and check after each stroke. You will be surprised how fast things change.

Hope this helps,

jtk

[Jim Davis]

I buy everything used except fasteners, and I try to get them at yard sales. Thinking of my offspring, I try to not pay more for a tool than they will be able to get at my estate sale. None of them will want my tools, so I want them to get the right amount of cash for them.

[Robert Engel]

The degree of accuracy of the expensive squares is non-consequential at my level of woodworking.I love it! I'm right with you. Plane to fit, that's my MO. :-D

[Matthew Springer]

The essence of the discussion is one that is both eternal and unresolvable: "Order these good values in terms of importance". Beauty, thrift, accuracy, enjoyment, adaptability, durability, tradition.

All these things are good, no two humans are ever going to come up with exactly the same ordering. And there's no resolution because there's no correct ordering. I like pretty tools, so I lean more on value 1. YMMV.

It's the same discussion I frequently get into with my spouse: which is better: thrift or indulgence? We've literally had discussions come down to the following exchange:
Me: "(dismissive) It's twenty bucks."
Her: "(emphatic) It's twenty bucks."

(And then we laugh and do whatever she wants).

[george wilson]

I order my choices in the following manner: accuracy,durability,beauty.I like tradition also,having worked in a museum for 40 years.:) My tools all look traditional even if I totally designed them. I obviously enjoy beautiful tools as anyone can attest who has seen the tools I have made. But accuracy must be the first in importance. After all,what does it matter if your square is engraved and gold plated if it isn't accurate?

Wooden squares are sort of a special thing: They are the least durable,but easy to plane or file if accuracy gets off. And also easy to make when a new one is needed. I used wooden squares in the museum shop for many years. Things had to be 18th. C. there.

This is just my opinion,of course. Everyone is free to go their own way. I can only offer things for free that might have taken me 10 or 20 years to find out. Saving the new woodworker so much time,and advancing him much faster. This is the reason we go to schools.

[lowell holmes]

[QUOTE=george wilson;2569012]I order my choices in the following manner: accuracy,durability,beauty.]

That's why I've had a Starret square for years. IIRC, I received it from my wife because it was on my Christmas list.

Every time I pick it up, I gloat a little. A friend gave me the round center finding attachment. When working with rounds, using a marking knife, I have absolute center.

[george wilson]

I paid probably too much for a 6" Starrett all steel square back in the 70's in a Pennsylvania flea market. Can't recall the price,but I still have it and use it. Still just like new. Since I tend to do smaller work,it is the square I use the most. I have a progression of Starrett and B&S squares up to 24" blade. They get QUITE heavy in the larger sizes,and I have to be careful to NOT DROP them on wooden projects! Of course,they were really meant for machinists,so I'm being excessive using them on wood in the first place.

[lowell holmes]

I also have an Athol Machine Co square. I don't know where or how I came by it. I was not aware that it is the fore runner to Starrett. It is an exceptionally smooth working square.

[Patrick Chase]

I paid probably too much for a 6" Starrett all steel square back in the 70's in a Pennsylvania flea market. Can't recall the price,but I still have it and use it. Still just like new. Since I tend to do smaller work,it is the square I use the most. I have a progression of Starrett and B&S squares up to 24" blade. They get QUITE heavy in the larger sizes,and I have to be careful to NOT DROP them on wooden projects! Of course,they were really meant for machinists,so I'm being excessive using them on wood in the first place.

Same situation here, though not as long ago. I invested in Starrett and Mitutoyo back when I was a mechanical engineer. They were expensive as all get out (esp for me back then), but they've been completely accurate and dependable.

I've looked at a bunch of Empire and Pinnacle (sold at Woodcraft) combo squares, and they've all had accuracy issues of one sort or another. I have an Empire "beater" combo square that had a reasonably straight blade, and I was able to hand-file the registration lands in the head to make it reasonably square.

I saw a "Made in USA" Pinnacle once wherein the 12" blade was warped by several mils (in the axis that matters) along its length. Now THAT takes some shoddy manufacturing.

[Art Mann]

There are woodworkers and then there are tool collectors. Sometimes people are both but it is more likely that a tool collector would pay that much for a square. The best woodworkers I know do not have the most expensive tools.

[george wilson]

Chris Vesper is still selling mostly squares,and I'll bet that a lot of them never get used. Same goes for Bridge City. Their tools are all over Ebay,and 99% have never been used,it seems.(Actually,I'd have to do complex counts and draw complicated graphs to prove that.)

I think that most woodworkers have a bit of collectors' blood in them. When I see pictures of tool cabinets made by guys here,I often see 20 crosscut and rip saws! and as many planes as well!!

I have a LOT more tools than I need,but I've admitted that I am a tool pig.:)

[Jim Koepke]

I have a LOT more tools than I need,but I've admitted that I am a tool pig.:)

George, I can just see us at a TPA meeting… "Hi, my name is Jim and I'm a tool pig." "Hi Jim."

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

It is actually very simple. One either side of the threaded apparatus that holds the blade in place are raised metal bosses (lands or other names may apply). If the angle of the beam (ruler?) to the head is greater than 90º, the one between the holding device and the work needs to have a little filed off. If the angle is less than 90º then the boss on the far side of the holding device needs to have a touch of metal removed. Use a file like an auger file with safe sides.

Also go slow and check after each stroke. You will be surprised how fast things change.

Hope this helps,

jtk

This is exactly right.

I'd add that if the mfr didn't bother to machine those properly to begin with then there will almost invariably be other problems as well (blade not straight, 90- and 45-deg surfaces not machined flat, "45 deg" surface not at 45 deg to the 90 deg surface, etc). Sometimes you get lucky, usually not.