The assumption is 4x4 is actually 3.5 x 3.5.
Remember when a 2x4 used to be 1 & 5/8 x (what was it) ? Guess I don not.
The weak link in the defense are the thousands of sheets of plywood that are stamped with actual sizes along with nominal. Not saying it is not stupid (more like greedy). I expect the greater exposure to big box stores (and for contractors) is in their grading, Grades are not just for appearance but for strength, some of that c*** would never pass.
Reading more posts I realised there is a difference in terminology, so I was thinking they were selling un planed timber as 4x4 that measured 3 1/2.
Over here we went metric so 4x4 is now 100x100. On the shop shelf it would be designated 100x100 rough sawn, which would actually measure 100x100, or it would be 100x100 dressed, which means it was 100x100 before it was dressed, or as I think Americans say, planed, so would now be something less than 100x100.
And agree, a lawsuit over that would be met with a similar level of scorn here.
However Specialkayme, who I think is a lawyer, has a point, this needs to be made clear to customers at point of sale.
Despite all this, because most timber I buy is for making bee gear and I have calculated what sized pieces I need to get out of that timber, I do take a tape and actually measure at the lumber yard before I take anything away.
"Every viewpoint, is a view from a point." - Solomon Parker
I go to a saw mill forum and it came up about six months ago. I had thought they were getting sued for not meeting the industry standard of what a 2 by 4 is, not that it wasn't 2 inches by 4 inches. My thoughts were that those stores lumber was not even measuring 3.5 inches (or what ever the standard is). I am wondering if you guys have what is being sued about wrong? If manards was saying they were selling 2 by 4s and those 2 by fours did not measure up to 1.5 and 3.5 like all those stores who were not cheating on the standard, then they were misrepresenting what was being sold and deserve to be called on it. Now I may be wrong on what is being sued about but do remember on the other site that it was because of the board not being 3.5 inches. I am not going to try and find out which it is but one is fine to sue for and one reason would be frivolous, at least in my mind. I am not saying I know which is the truth.
Here's a link to the complaint:
Nobody ruins my day without my permission, and I refuse to grant it...
Thanks for the link Barry,
After reading, it becomes apparent that these consumers were shocked to find out that a 2x4 does not measure 2"x4". I've been building for 50 years and always knew that but I guess lumber providers will have to make it clear that it is a nominal size from now on.
Kind of like the warning on the lawn mower that you shouldn't put your hands under the mower while it is running.
Herbhome Farm USDA zone 7a
Thats pretty plain. Sounds frivolous to me'
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney
What I don't get is why they don't sue the big box stores for not grading lumber to the standards. That should be punished.
But the mill has no control over how the lumber is stored after it leaves. I've seen some places that take very good lumber and turn it into garbage by simply leaving it out in a yard, open to the weather for a few weeks. Lots of rain followed by a couple weeks of hot and dry, now almost every board in the lift is warped and twisted, cant find a strait board in the batch if your life depends on it. Leave it long enough like that, and you'll see rot starting in places too.
A detailed history of the evolution of nominal lumber sizes in this document:
Regional size grading was written and codified by 1906, and surfaced 2x material was specified at near modern dimensions. Modern green 2x4 is considered S4S (surfaced four sides), and hence the 1906 size standard for 2x4 S4S is 1.5 x 3.5 inches. The lawsuit may be 111 years too late.