On 5/19/2019 1:31 AM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
I guess they figure if you measure more
than a foot, you don't need 1/32" accuracy.

I would rather "copy" a length than use a tape measure under those
circumstances.

I don't know what you mean by "copy" a length? Are you saying you don't
use a tape if you need 1/32" accuracy over a foot because there are no
1/32" markings?

In over 60 years of woodworking I have not found a need for those 1/32"
measures in the first foot, they just get in the way. Regardless of
length, 6" or 20', I can put a mark half way between two 1/16" lines.
My 30' tapes don't have 1/32" marks, so I guess they,(the morons making
tapes) think accuracy is only important in the first foot on short
tapes. Truth is, 1/32" lines are mostly just an unnecessary nuisance
both under and over a foot measurements.

Except admittedly, it's hard to measure a circumference
that way. Did they have tape measures in the 17th and 18th century? If
not, I guess we don't need them! ; )

I wasn't around then, but sometimes it feels like I was. I know they
didn't have digital calibers, that's for sure.

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.