On 5/19/2019 9:43 AM, Jack wrote:
On 5/19/2019 1:31 AM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
Â*Â* 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?Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* Truth is, 1/32" lines are mostly just an unnecessary nuisance
both under and over a foot measurements.

FWIW and, yes, I know there are other ways to skin this cat; how about
measuring a sheet of 1/2" or 3/4" plywood for setting a dado? Rarely is
plywood exactly what it is sold as. It can vary by a 16th or 32nd.

Sure, it's easy enough to cut the baby in half as you suggest but if
there were no 32nd" marks on the tape you can bet the manufacturer's
would probably hear gripes about their absence.


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

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