You mean a 2 X 4 is really 1.5" X 3.5" ?? :eek: :mad:
I’ve purchased a LOT of dimensional lumber over the past 30 years. Looks like I’ve been getting ripped off all this time. I want a part of this class-action lawsuit!
Home Depot, Menards face lawsuits over lumber size description
I recently discovered that 7-Up is actually only 6-Up!
The thread title is horribly misleading.
The problem doesn’t remotely go back that far. People have known that 2x4s aren’t really 2" by 4" for a long time.
The problem is that the nominal size keeps shrinking. So you’re repairing a 30 year old house and you find that the current 2x4s are smaller than the ones you are replacing. This can be a real problem.
The “reasoning” behind making them smaller is absurd. Them: “Hey, we got a great new way to dry lumber so it doesn’t shrink as much, can we cut them to a smaller size before we dry them?” Feds: “Sure.” Them: “Oh, by the way, this means the end product will actually be smaller.” ???
Just repeat this every few decades and eventually we’ll have 2x4s the size of toothpicks.
You could always go to your local re-claimed wood store and pay a bazillion $$ per board-foot, Norm.
(Whoops, lumber’s too thick.)
I wish I could say there was more nuance to these lawsuits, but sadly there isn’t. Here’s the Home Depot claim, the Menards one is very similar. Customer bought dimensional lumber and was upset that it wasn’t the “advertised” nominal size. Full stop. Either this customer didn’t know that 2x4s aren’t really 2" by 4", or it’s a blatant bullshit cash-grab.
That said, at some point we need to accept that understanding nominal vs dimensional lumber sizing isn’t necessarily common knowledge, and big box stores target the sorts of consumers who might not know. This isn’t a question of intelligence, a lot of people can just go for decades without ever needing to buy lumber. “Renters,” I think they’re called. There’s lots of them out there.
Furthermore, I’ve never really understood the point. Quality control is pretty good and everyone can be reasonably assured that their 2x4s are going to be very close to 1.5" x 3.5", so why would I care how big it started out as? Especially if, as ftg points out, it probably didn’t actually start out as a 2" x 4" board anyway? What relation does a modern 2x4 have to those nominal dimensions anymore? None, AFAIK. It’s just a historical artifact, a bit of trivia that everyone is somehow expected to know.
Now, is this worth a lawsuit? I have a hard time thinking anyone was actually damaged by dimensional lumber, as the defendants both point out that you can’t actually buy a 2" x 4" piece of lumber anywhere.
I usually buy lumber at Lowe’s (closer to the house than Home Depot), and the little info tags on the lumber displays have the actual size of the boards on them. They read something like “2x4x8 (cut size 1.5x3.5x8)” or whatever the actual dimensions are.
Does Home Depot not do that?
Indeed. If home improvement and builder supply stores had idiot detectors at the door, they’d stop having problems with people who don’t understand the ancient and unchanged difference between nominal and actual size. But then it might keep some of the employees out too. (Lowe’s, I’m looking at you. :D)
If the aforementioned idiots (aka, “plaintiffs”) could get actual 2" by 4" 2-by-4 dimensional lumber, they’d still sue somebody because of all the splinters they’d give themselves by using unplaned lumber. And also because it must be defective, because it doesn’t fit where the other studs do (because they’re the correct actual size for the nominal size.) After all, you can’t wedge a true 4" wide riser or plate into an existing studwall based on the correct-sized dimensional studding, and if you can’t it must be defective. 
Well, I did run into an annoying issue recently when working on my house. The old trim on the house was 1x8 (3/4 x 7.5). Except that apparently, 1x8’s are now 3/4 x 7.25. So instead of just buying a board and nailing it in place, I had to buy a significantly wider board and cut it down to size. That was just irritating.
“Whoop you up-side the head with a 1.5 x 3.5” just doesn’t have a ring to it.
“Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my case against The Never-Ending Story!”
There was a lawsuit against the makers of HD televisions, because, for example, the 55" set wasn’t really 55". If you measured the screen size from one corner of the frame to the other, you’d get something like 54.9" instead. So now they advertise these things as 55" class televisions. And I think there was another suit against the makers of hard drives, because of the claims of how large the hard drives in gigabytes and the different ways people define a gigabyte. (Plus I believe most drives allocate some space as unusable.)
So I wonder if this is the same law firm that’s been looking for the next big case.
HD, True Value (ACE), Orchard Supply, and DoIt Centers (DIY Stores) all do the same. I’ve been hunting for various things over the last few weeks while fixing up stuff in the house I just moved into, so I’ve been noticing that.
And, FWIW Steronz, Home Depot appears to cater to the contractors (and also happen to welcome the DIY guys like me who are trying to repair existing stuff rather than build new structures). I, for one, kind of expect the contractors to know a 2x4 isn’t a 2"w by 4"h even though the stated length is still correct. And if they don’t they’re outta their depth and should find another field of employment!
–G!
I remember reading an article, years ago, written by an experienced architect. He was describing how he was reviewing some plans drawn up by some intern or young architect fresh out of school. He said the drawings looked wrong somehow, but couldn’t initially see the problem. Eventually it dawned on him that the kid drew the walls with studs that measured two inches by four inches. The point of the article was the difference between what is learned in school and how the real world works (although I’d expect architecture schools would teach their students what the dimensions of real lumber are).
I’m going to sue my butcher. There’s no ham in his hamburgers. The Chinese food industry is in trouble too because of Egg Rolls. I’m still doing the research on Jumbo Shrimp.
I don’t know the exact procedure used in milling the lumber but I believe they allow for the thickness of the saw blade when figuring board feet, so you pay for some sawdust. Modern mills may do this in one shot but I think the older mills took a rough cut and then a finish cut. the rough cut I believe was 2X4 minus 1/2 the thickness of the saw blade.
I bought my tiny little house 20+ years ago. It was initially built in 1928 and went through a few fix-ups. When I got around to fixing up a few things myself, I found 2X4s that were 2inches by 4inches, 1and3/4 inches by 3and3/4 inches and 1and1/2 inches by 3and1/2 inches…
I asked around and was told that 1and1/2 inches by 3and1/2 inches was the industry standard and had been for 40+ years…
I remember when 25cents bought a huge candy bar - and comic books sold for 15 cents…
Shit happens and industry/sellers have been fudging numbers for a long time…
The nominal sizes have been exactly the same for more than 50 years. They were standardized in 1961.
A 2x4 bought 30 years ago will be very close to 2.5x3.5 inches after kiln drying and planing and the same size as one bought today.
There were standards before that, but they varied considerably over time and by region, partially due to the fact that less consistent drying methods were used. It’s true that lumber is rough-sawn smaller now. That’s because computer-controlled lumbermills and high-tech kilns can cut and dry far more accurately than before. The finished size is still 2.5x3.5.
You must mean 1.5x3.5…
I am contacting my attorney post-haste.
I suspect my Jeep is actually just a 3.5 by 3.5.
mmm
:smack: I haven’t slept much.