I can acknowledge that when you buy a 2x4 it is not really 2.0" or 2.00" or
2.000": the sme idea in the 4" magnitude. I also appreciate the fact that
"select" lumber is "better dressed": it has sharp arrisses, and it is
probly straighter, maybe even holds it flatness due to its (after-green?)
subsequent machining. I am not aware that may be closer to its corresponding
theoretical equivalent magnitude than the otherwise lesser dressed
non-select lumber of the the same nominal designation. A 2x4, either a
cheap one, or a select one may be theoretically the same
Or is it that it has been made to be thast way, either bought that way or
machined, exactly what the fraction says it is. eg 6/4 = 1-1/2", or 1.5x",
where for the sake of argument x =0
"Select" has more to do with the quality of the board than "better dressed"
It has less knots and has minimum width and length requirements.
it has sharp arrisses, and it is
No, the select will have fewer to no knots. It will be a better quality
A board is graded on both sides, and the worse side determines the final
The best grade is called FAS. This stands for Firsts and Seconds. These
grades are the best you can get.
Firsts required 91 2/3 % clear area and Seconds required 81 2/3 %
FAS, which is both Firsts and Seconds combined, requires 83 1/3 % clear
The second best grade is called F1F, or FAS1F, (FAS 1 Face).
F1F is a bit better than Select and graded the same, except the minimum
board size is 6" wide and 8' long.
The next grade is Select, or SEL.
This is a combination of FAS on one face and #1 on the other face.
Select boards must be 4" wide and 6' long or bigger.
The better face still needs to grade 83 1/3 % clear for the given area of
but it does not have to be as large as FAS graded lumber
The next grade is #1 Common. This grade requires 66 2/3 % clear area on the
Then you have 2A, and 2B at 50 percent, and 3A, and 3B at 33 1/3 %
Basically, the required clear area drops as you get down to a 3A board.
True in theory, but practice is somewhat different. With the accepted
size of that 2 X dimension at 1.5", it is cut to the smallest possible
thickness that will enable planing to the 1.5". 2 X used to be 1-5/8"
planed, and before that it was 1-3/4" planed (and dry). Certainly you
don't think the mills have gotten LESS efficient in their planing over
the last 80 years?
I can't quote you any numbers, and they would vary from mill to mill,
but I'd bet that for the best band saw mills today the sawed thickness
plus the saw kerf is under 2" today for 2 X lumber.
I am still confused why the category pertaining to quality is linked to a
minimum dimension quantity. Why do you need x inches to get a board of *#+*
o/w the a/b is a single dimension for hardwood. It is understood hardwood,
and can use the chart for sizes.
Firsts 6 inches
Seconds 6 inches
Selects 4 inches
No. 1, 2, 3A, 3B Common 3 inches
then there is s1s, s2s
or, are these designations qualities' interchangable? I guess, eh. Firsts
Seconds 6 inches
Selects 4 inches
No. 1, 2, 3A, 3B Common
Interesting thread: The OP's question was never even answered,
that I could see; definitely not directly.
Since he was "dying to know" he's probably dead by now - and
long gone too, thinking there's nothing but a bunch of
ignoramusses here. Good way to pair down the traffic guys!
On 4/2/2006 4:07 PM Pop mumbled something about the following:
Oh yeah, like you did anything to answer his question. Now if you can
decipher what the hell he was asking and come up with a good answer that
was better than what has been said, then share it with the rest of us.
No one seems to know, so ...
Board thicknesses are basically measured in quarters of an inch.
Thus, rough cut lumber is given as, say, 5/4 meaning 1 1/4"
thick. 6/4 is 1 1/2, and so on.
So if you ask for 5/4 lumber, you're asking for rough cut,
unplaned lumber. Once it's planed, then you get the 2 x 4 that's
actually closer to 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 (take 1/32, depending on humity,
the yard, machines etc etc etc.).
Sfunny none of you geniuses could bother to come up with at least
that much; it's rather elemental, really, although there's really
a tad more to it.
You're still a bunch of ignoramusses for the thread activity,
90% of which was OT from the poster's question. The OP is long
gone, I'm sure. You should be, too.
Close, but still flawed by a basic lack of understanding ... go back and
read the link in the first reply to the OP and take the first step in
Then on to the following and you'll see how incomplete and far off you
Is it necessary to take such a tone with folks here? Would you speak to them
this way were you talking to them in their shop? In yours?
I'm not at all sure, but suspect many - if not most of us are participating
here to learn from one another. And, when we offer a comment, do so with the
honest intent to share what we have learned here or elsewhere upon the
assumption that it is correct. That is, we do not contribute items we know
to be false or incorrect.
The comments are not to an individual (although one does have that option)
but to the group as a whole. Therefore, the ad hominid attacks on folks
doing their best (which may not be up to the standards of the highest
achievers reading) are inappropriate.
Better to contribute the URL of an authoritative source and offer the reader
an opportunity to revisit the subject than to attack his or her
I may be the only one on the list that finds this sort of arrogance
annoying, but I suspect it is less than pleasant for many more.
Okay, next time you tell everyone they're wrong... we'll know not to be
Who's ad hominid (sic)? I think Odinn said his contribution lacked what
he was accusing everyone elses of lacking. That's not an ad hominem.
Don't identify too closely with your ideas.
Um, are you responding to the wrong person? One person attacked
someone's intelligence. One person did not.
I read it as annoyance and irritation. Arrogance is a different animal,
and you probably won't find it in a setting as anarchic as Usenet (well,
'cept for Tholenbots). The guy just called everyone an
And the question (in the various ways it can be conceived) was answered
correctly in the thread, contrary to the complaint, so irritation was
Well Gooey, since you top posted to my post ... let us begin to pray
"Gooey TARBALLS" wrote in message
Of that, let there be NO doubt, Gooey.
An excellent argument can be made that only someone both ignorant of the
subject, AND unable to read the replies in the thread, could proffer the
Calling everyone who replied "ignoramusses" (sic) is, however, acceptable?
Hmmm ... and just what have you added to the woodworking knowledge of this
thread in that very manner, Gooey?
There is always the NEXT key at your complete disposal, Gooey ... learn to
wield it and you will be guaranteed to be less annoyed, but, unfortunately,
none the wiser.
... and if you must top post, please learn to trim the extraneous message
header crap out of your replies.
On 4/3/2006 8:02 AM Swingman mumbled something about the following:
My lack of a workshop (daughter and her fiance have if full of their
furniture) had been getting to me. I've got 650 bd ft of 4/4 and 8/4
red maple and another 150 bd ft of 8/4 white oak that's been air drying
in another shed for a year that I'm just dieing to make something with.
Think I'll just go for another ride on the motorcycle and clear my head.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.