Inching Forwards

My very early education in Northern Ireland taught me the use and application of the Imperial system of measurement and I recall at the time, the huge sense of accomplishment upon grasping the concept of inches accumulating into feet in multiples of twelve and feet into yards in multiples of three. Then everything increased by the power of ten in 1965 when the Confederation of British Industry embraced decimalisation and metrication (or “metri-feckcation” as it was known in ‘Norn Iron’).

I took to the decimal system like the proverbial Mallard to H2O (no more fractions for me!), but like others of my generation who I’ve discussed this with; I still envisage measurements greater than two metres in feet or yards! Younger generations obviously don’t suffer this transitional syndrome.

I’m not complaining, because, from my involvement with antiques, the ability to jump between the two distinct systems has been quite fortuitous. I am a metrified car designer, builder and racer, but I am an ‘Imperial’ restorer and reproducer of antique furniture.

My favoured period of antiques largely precedes the establishment of the Metric System in eighteenth-century revolutionary France (the concept itself predates this by well over a hundred years) and I find it simpler and more pleasurable to continue restoring, remaking and reproducing furniture using the same system of measurement in which it was conceived or made (not that the new metric standards of 1791 would have had any influence on furniture design or manufacture, or the manufacture and take-up of woodworking tools, for some considerable time).

My 5/16 in. chisel perfectly matched the width of the mortises in my George II mahogany stool when it required restoration. The less fanatical might argue that equivalent metric chisels are near enough – they’re not – but all right then, where can one obtain metric moulding planes compatible with eighteenth-century profiles? And of course, everybody knows that dining chair seats are exactly 17-1/2 in. high and dining table tops 29-1/2 in.

I have to go for my nap now…


The adoption of the Metric System has been universal with the notable exceptions of the two great global forces, the United States of America and… Liberia. These countries remain the sole exponents of ‘feet and inches’. It’s peculiar the USA didn’t implement metrication when distancing themselves from Mother England after the Revolutionary War; instead, they plugged on with the old feet and inches.

I say “old”, because the system in use in the USA didn’t keep abreast of nineteenth-century developments. In the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, Britain introduced the Imperial System, effectively updating, improving and standardising many archaic, regional and trade-specific units of measurement, but the United States of America doggedly hung on to their outdated system, eventually renaming it the US Customary System.

There is an upshot to all this non-compliance; the USA is a handy source of chisels, rulers and other lay-out tools fabricated and calibrated in inches – and true eighteenth-century inches at that!


Finally, just a quick word in the collective ear of North American tool store managers; please amend your catalogue descriptions of items delineated in inches from “English” to something more accurate like “Customary”. Thank you!

About Jack Plane

Formerly from the UK, Jack is a retired antiques dealer and self-taught woodworker, now living in Australia.
This entry was posted in Tools and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Inching Forwards

  1. Pat Naughtin says:

    Dear Jack Plane,

    You wrote: ‘It’s peculiar the USA didn’t implement metrication when distancing themselves from Mother England after the Revolutionary War; instead, they plugged on with the old feet and inches.’

    Actually, they tried to invent a new method of measurement in the USA during the 1780s; Thomas Jefferson was the leader of this push with the cooperation of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

    Although they failed to gain political support in the USA, they had more success in France promoting the idea of decimal measuring methods.

    See: and


    Pat Naughtin
    Geelong, Australia


  2. Jack Plane says:

    Hello Pat and thank you for taking the time to comment. I wasn’t aware of your sterling (pun intended) work, but I am familiar with much of the Anglo-Franco-American liaisons you cite in your article.

    My whimsical précis, I think you’ll agree, is accurate nonetheless; although Jefferson made some inroads into currency decimalisation prior to the Revolutionary War, the USA never did implement metrication. Britain, being more industrious than France or America, became bogged down in historical minutiae and couldn’t pull it out of the hole for another 175 years.

    I bet you’ve been watching the series John Adams, I certainly have.


  3. chuck says:

    It would be nice to put feet and inches in the background and move forward in the metric system only but here in canada they introduced it in the 70’s and the old system persists still. It takes time i suppose.


I welcome your comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s