Learned years ago how to adjust a steel framing square using this technique, which is pretty cool if you're interested in that type of thing. I now instinctively do this whenever I pick up a square (especially combo squares) If you're buying a square at a local store it's not a bad idea to check it there as well.
I see a lot of videos using this method. Every one uses a pencil on wood. At best You can see maybe ten or fifteen thousandths with that method. If you really wantoa good test, use the knife on a blued metal surface.
I bought both 6" and 12" Empire adjustable squares, and both were slightly off... Then looked at the Empire aluminum "speed squares", and those were slightly dished on the "T" side... had to return them to Home-Depot, as every one of the probably 20 pieces at my local store were the same. Two months latter, they had the same speed "squares" just in a red "Milwaukee" color, instead of blue; but were also dished to almost the same degree! And when testing a Stanley large carpenter's square, it was off again!... It was just incredible to find that a cheap, 17 Canadian Dollars LASER level, from the Canadian store equivalent to the USA Radio-Shack, is DEAD ON ACCURATE when projecting its cross lines and being perpendicular to a wall... Perfect 90 degrees! (Not bad for a small plastic prism in front of a cheap Laser!). I am amazed that there is no simple square that is true, but a cheap Laser is better!
I think the most expensive square I have is a $16 7" speed square that I can't even remember the brand name of. I also have a machinist square, a combination square and a framing square, the only one of which I know the brand of, it being an ACE Hardware store brand. I did this test on them some time ago and they're all pretty reliably square. Oh, and Irwin is still around...at least it is here in southern Indiana as our local Ace carries a lot of their stuff, along with Craftsman, Milwaukee, DeWalt and Stihl.
Love this video. I don't know how I never heard of doing this, or figured it out myself. How square is square enough? That's a question for ol' Bessey.
You asked how square does something have to be in my shop. The answer depends on what we're discussing. For my work, I try to make my drawers, cabinet carcasses, face frames 'reasonably' square. I don't have a precise definition for 'reasonably square', but I wouldn't throw a kitchen cabinet drawer out if the diagonal measurements differed by 1/16". What I mean by reasonably square is that any error won't be affect function or be readily apparent without measuring. However, to achieve that level of accuracy, I have much higher standards for my measuring tools. It's hard to be more accurate than your tools. If my square is out by, say, 1/16" over its 13" length, it would be very hard for me to consistently make anything that's more square than that. Given the inevitable inconsistencies of making things by hand (even when using modern power tools) out of wood, my parts are apt to be even more out of square than my tool's measurement error. Add in the fact that such errors tend to be cumulative and a project made from several out of square parts is apt to be itself so out of square it doesn't meet my 'reasonably square' standard. So, my standard for my squares is they must not have any perceptible error (without resorting to a dial indicator). I'd throw out the iGaging square.
Great comment, thanks for sharing! You’re absolutely right about there always being inconsistencies. Maybe the pencil line isn’t perfect, maybe there’s a bit of deflection in the saw blade, etc. All of that would compound if there was an issue with the initial layout.
Extra: How square do you need? Most agree you need more square for metal working than wood…but even if putting up a stud partition wall and you need to trim a 7 foot long plasterboard, small inaccuracies grow over distance. So 1 mm out on a 12” square becomes a 7mm gap or bad overlap on your plasterboard sheet. As a general rule, if you can detect an ‘out of square’ fit by eye, then that is too much, and most human eyes are pretty good at that.
Excellent video, thanks for posting! I recently had a sub-par experience with buying a woodpecker square; I bought the 1282SS, and while it was square, the blade was bent. I had to do a refund (and had to remind them to refund me the return shipping) and instead bought the cheaper, thicker all-aluminum 1281. I'm very happy with that one, but I only use it for checking for square on things like cabinet carcasses or larger builds. Years ago I tried a 4" igauging double square before I got my LV double squares and it was a good bit off. It's a shame about that big igauging square you have; I'd probably keep one of those around for layout if it was square. My most used squares and 4" and 6" double squares from lee valley (made by PEC tools), and my 12" starrett combo square. All are spot on. Those are all imperial though, and I'm switching my shop to metric, so I'll be buying more PEC variants in mm soon. I'm still looking for a perfect apron square for checking small boxes, drawers and the ends of crosscut pieces; basically I'd love a square that's like a machinist square, but made of stainless steel so it won't be affected by moisture, and completely flat, and on the thicker side (1/4" or so). I think taytools has something like that, but I'm not sure how accurate they are. Anyway, excellent topic for woodworkers!
Oh wow, that's too bad about your Woodpeckers 1282 but I'm happy to hear the 1281 is in good order. I like some the of additional features of the 1282 (in addition to being stainless), but it is heavy! Great note about Lee Valley's being made by PEC - I knew it was outsourced but I wasn't sure who made it. For me, I'm using the smaller 150mm Woodpeckers 642 far more often than I expected.
You can have a few ‘square’ tools in a workshop, but you must have at least one which you can rely on to be properly square for when that really matters. I bought the Woodpeckers over priced 1281, but it is bang on square. Unfortunately the blade is so thick that parallax is an issue when marking (you have to view the scale with one eye from dead perpendicular over it). I also purchased a Presch brand combination square, which is also a dead on accurate. My mini engineers square is ok for saw blades but extending short squares any distance is bound to produce errors. My worst is a 7” 15 quid, aluminium square from Amazon, Chinese I think. It is about a millimetre under square at the end of its blade; if extended out by the time you get to a metre (3 feet) it will be out by a quarter inch! I need a big layout square, like two feet….but these are hard to find where people have anything good to report, and I can’t afford more Woodpeckers! I am considering just making a big plywood triangle like a rafter square, which I can ensure is true by my old friend Pythagorus….He never lets me down on accuracy.
A great video with some really interesting results. In relation to the large iGaging square it might have been useful to repeat the test just to make sure that the square hadn't slipped slightly whilst you were drawing the lines. That aside I still enjoyed it.
Thanks for watching! Before filming the video I did check each of the squares a few times so that I could ensure the results on video were consistent. The magic of TH-cam, haha!
pretty lucky to work in a pretty high end cabinet shop and i ended up with... an empire square lol.. honestly for any freehand stuff im gonna do its plenty good enough. if i need anything better ill use our big slider saw. that woodpecker almost got me.. more money for other tools heh.
I know the line drawing test isn't that hard to do, but I sometimes have a hard time telling how close/parallel the lines are. Or I have trouble with lines that aren't clean and even thickness. I wish there was a not too expensive home tool that I could use to test squares and it would give me some readout of the accuracy. Thanks for the video and hope to see more soon.
Oooh, this is a great comment. In the past (when I was a bit obsessive and not trusting of this test) I’d pull out a double-ended compass (two sharp ends used for getting distances on maps). I’d then make it so there was more distance between the lines and use that to check the spacing.
Thanks for this video. I have the 7" Irwin square. Last time I checked, the inner side of the ruler blade is not square. I wonder if you can check it on yours. I'm curious what the result will be.
Thanks for watching! I just checked the Irwin and the inner side is very slightly out of square, but not too bad. For general construction, it’s very much within the tolerance I expected.
Unfortunately it wasn’t user error on the iGaging, it’s just out of square. I still really like iGaging as my other products from them have been perfect and their quality control is quite good. I just got unlucky with this particular unit. I’d still very much recommend them as a brand.
I had a cheap 12" combo square when I started, It was ok for a while. As soon as my budget could afford I bought both a 12" & 6" Starrett. combo set. A bit pricey but both were dead accurate right out of the box, and three years of daily use are still dead accurate.
I have the same set of woodpeckers squares, and I hate the 150mm. Have you noticed that the inside and outside scales on it are off by a multiple of 5 mm rather than a multiple of 10 mm? That means the indexing holes can only be used in reference to one of the two edges. They tried to cut corners by making the base the same as the imperial version (25 mm), but they could have avoided the problem simply by rounding down its size to 20 mm (or even rounding it up to 30 mm, although that would have likely cost more). It's certainly square, but it's poorly designed.
Ahhh, I can’t unsee this now! That hasn’t really played into the way I do my marking but I was just reviewing what you said and completely understand this frustration with the indexing holes.
Irwin and a machinist square all day long. If I ever decide to build museum quality anything ( that would be never) I'd consider woodpecker. There is absolutely no reason in the world for the pricing on them. None. Except all the marketing done by high-end cabinet shops whose smallest project starts at $ 5000. Look at me I have a whole red wall of tools worth 20k just to measure within one-thousandths of an inch. And you need these too or you are not a real woodworker. Oh and here's my 20 thousand dollar chisel collection. And don't forget Festool. Or a CNC. For a mere 100k you too can be a woodworker and make a shoe rack for your wife.
Agree Woodpeckers tools are expensive and I don’t know how they price their tools. But the woodpeckers tools I do have are excellent quality. Also their customer service and is excellent for the two times I had issues. I also like to support US companies as to many items are not, example Craftsman tools with use to be may go to brand before started to be made outside US and they declined in quality
Have you tried them though? I mean the woodpecker stuff? It’s kinda like a Lie Nielsen plane. Sure an old Stanley can get you there but the journey is so much better.
That is not the way to hold a square for accuracy. The whole test is flawed for that reason. I could see the square move slightly on a couple of the tests.
I agree his tests were extremely flawed. The theory is sound, but his execution was very inconsistent and imprecise. He also should’ve used a drafters, mechanical pencil that would ensure much more consistent/precise line width.
Indeed I do! I've been using this one from Big Horn for 5+ years and it's been great. Lee Valley might have some nicer looking ones, but I can't see them being with 2-3x the price. US link: amzn.to/445inbR CA link: amzn.to/3NXpVYw
The large iGaging is trash and one of the smaller as well. I bought a Veiko brand from China that was inaccurate and it went in the trash. I have one Woodraphic that is square when checked with my Woodpeckers so I call it square.
Think you need to repeat the iGauge test. Just because you cut a line with the track saw does not guarantee that the line was cut straight. I would re test it very close to the woodpecker and also in a different spot maybe towards the right. If all of those show same result, then you got a dud and need to return it as defective.
What's the chance of: the WP is in a good spot, the Irwin is also in a good spot, some how the ig fell in a bad spot right in the middle of the 2 good spots??? A dud is a dud.
Im not claiming that it's not a Dud, it probably is. I'm just saying that before you go calling somebody's baby ugly, you better have PROVED beyond any reasonable doubt that its ugly, and that was not done here with just a single flip of the square at different spots on the material from the spots that the other squares faired well with. At the very least, you got to use the exact same spots that the other squares gave good results on, and then if you still get bad results, then yes it is indeed a Dud. It probably is a Dud (IAW Occams Razor) but like I said, we need proof before making bad claims on usually reliable product brands. IMHO of course ;-)@@myledang
@@MasonWoodshop you'd use a punch to adjust a rafter square. I don't see why it wouldn't work on your square that you don't think is adjustable. Metal is a plastic material.
I ordered the layout square set - the larger 12 inch square was off by over 1/8 of an inch. Totally unbelievable after paying 135 CAD for the set. Treid calling dealing with thier customer service but they spoke very poor English/Chinese (God bless America I guess). I wouldn't recomend this product or company
Wow, that’s awful! There is so much positive content on iGaging out there, and I have generally been happy with the precision of most of my iGaging products. But the quality control on some of their items is concerning.
I’ve been a big proponent of iGaging tools and love my two sets of squares from them (these ones were all stainless steel). The only issue I’ve had was with the one in this video, which just wasn’t square. I’m hopeful that this is rare and it just happened that mine was out of square as a one-off.
@@MasonWoodshop you’re not the only guy to have negative things to say about igaging. I bought the same layout squares, the 7” and 12” versions, and both are not square. I also checked the inside edges of both with the same results.
@@bretthollenbeck812 Thanks for sharing your experience. I really do think iGaging makes great products at reasonable prices, but their QA could be better to prevent these types of issues.
Learned years ago how to adjust a steel framing square using this technique, which is pretty cool if you're interested in that type of thing. I now instinctively do this whenever I pick up a square (especially combo squares) If you're buying a square at a local store it's not a bad idea to check it there as well.
I see a lot of videos using this method. Every one uses a pencil on wood. At best You can see maybe ten or fifteen thousandths with that method. If you really wantoa good test, use the knife on a blued metal surface.
I bought both 6" and 12" Empire adjustable squares, and both were slightly off... Then looked at the Empire aluminum "speed squares", and those were slightly dished on the "T" side... had to return them to Home-Depot, as every one of the probably 20 pieces at my local store were the same. Two months latter, they had the same speed "squares" just in a red "Milwaukee" color, instead of blue; but were also dished to almost the same degree!
And when testing a Stanley large carpenter's square, it was off again!... It was just incredible to find that a cheap, 17 Canadian Dollars LASER level, from the Canadian store equivalent to the USA Radio-Shack, is DEAD ON ACCURATE when projecting its cross lines and being perpendicular to a wall... Perfect 90 degrees! (Not bad for a small plastic prism in front of a cheap Laser!). I am amazed that there is no simple square that is true, but a cheap Laser is better!
The inconsistencies and squares not being reasonably square is wild! Great note on the laser!
What brand is that laser level? I've been wanting one for a while, but it just seemed like you had to spend $$$$ to get a good one
I think the most expensive square I have is a $16 7" speed square that I can't even remember the brand name of. I also have a machinist square, a combination square and a framing square, the only one of which I know the brand of, it being an ACE Hardware store brand. I did this test on them some time ago and they're all pretty reliably square. Oh, and Irwin is still around...at least it is here in southern Indiana as our local Ace carries a lot of their stuff, along with Craftsman, Milwaukee, DeWalt and Stihl.
Love this video. I don't know how I never heard of doing this, or figured it out myself.
How square is square enough?
That's a question for ol' Bessey.
Great work and video, Mr. Mason!
You asked how square does something have to be in my shop. The answer depends on what we're discussing. For my work, I try to make my drawers, cabinet carcasses, face frames 'reasonably' square. I don't have a precise definition for 'reasonably square', but I wouldn't throw a kitchen cabinet drawer out if the diagonal measurements differed by 1/16". What I mean by reasonably square is that any error won't be affect function or be readily apparent without measuring.
However, to achieve that level of accuracy, I have much higher standards for my measuring tools. It's hard to be more accurate than your tools. If my square is out by, say, 1/16" over its 13" length, it would be very hard for me to consistently make anything that's more square than that. Given the inevitable inconsistencies of making things by hand (even when using modern power tools) out of wood, my parts are apt to be even more out of square than my tool's measurement error. Add in the fact that such errors tend to be cumulative and a project made from several out of square parts is apt to be itself so out of square it doesn't meet my 'reasonably square' standard. So, my standard for my squares is they must not have any perceptible error (without resorting to a dial indicator). I'd throw out the iGaging square.
Great comment, thanks for sharing! You’re absolutely right about there always being inconsistencies. Maybe the pencil line isn’t perfect, maybe there’s a bit of deflection in the saw blade, etc. All of that would compound if there was an issue with the initial layout.
Extra: How square do you need? Most agree you need more square for metal working than wood…but even if putting up a stud partition wall and you need to trim a 7 foot long plasterboard, small inaccuracies grow over distance. So 1 mm out on a 12” square becomes a 7mm gap or bad overlap on your plasterboard sheet. As a general rule, if you can detect an ‘out of square’ fit by eye, then that is too much, and most human eyes are pretty good at that.
Excellent video, thanks for posting!
I recently had a sub-par experience with buying a woodpecker square; I bought the 1282SS, and while it was square, the blade was bent. I had to do a refund (and had to remind them to refund me the return shipping) and instead bought the cheaper, thicker all-aluminum 1281. I'm very happy with that one, but I only use it for checking for square on things like cabinet carcasses or larger builds.
Years ago I tried a 4" igauging double square before I got my LV double squares and it was a good bit off. It's a shame about that big igauging square you have; I'd probably keep one of those around for layout if it was square.
My most used squares and 4" and 6" double squares from lee valley (made by PEC tools), and my 12" starrett combo square. All are spot on.
Those are all imperial though, and I'm switching my shop to metric, so I'll be buying more PEC variants in mm soon.
I'm still looking for a perfect apron square for checking small boxes, drawers and the ends of crosscut pieces; basically I'd love a square that's like a machinist square, but made of stainless steel so it won't be affected by moisture, and completely flat, and on the thicker side (1/4" or so). I think taytools has something like that, but I'm not sure how accurate they are.
Anyway, excellent topic for woodworkers!
Oh wow, that's too bad about your Woodpeckers 1282 but I'm happy to hear the 1281 is in good order. I like some the of additional features of the 1282 (in addition to being stainless), but it is heavy!
Great note about Lee Valley's being made by PEC - I knew it was outsourced but I wasn't sure who made it. For me, I'm using the smaller 150mm Woodpeckers 642 far more often than I expected.
You can have a few ‘square’ tools in a workshop, but you must have at least one which you can rely on to be properly square for when that really matters. I bought the Woodpeckers over priced 1281, but it is bang on square. Unfortunately the blade is so thick that parallax is an issue when marking (you have to view the scale with one eye from dead perpendicular over it). I also purchased a Presch brand combination square, which is also a dead on accurate. My mini engineers square is ok for saw blades but extending short squares any distance is bound to produce errors. My worst is a 7” 15 quid, aluminium square from Amazon, Chinese I think. It is about a millimetre under square at the end of its blade; if extended out by the time you get to a metre (3 feet) it will be out by a quarter inch! I need a big layout square, like two feet….but these are hard to find where people have anything good to report, and I can’t afford more Woodpeckers! I am considering just making a big plywood triangle like a rafter square, which I can ensure is true by my old friend Pythagorus….He never lets me down on accuracy.
A great video with some really interesting results. In relation to the large iGaging square it might have been useful to repeat the test just to make sure that the square hadn't slipped slightly whilst you were drawing the lines. That aside I still enjoyed it.
Thanks for watching! Before filming the video I did check each of the squares a few times so that I could ensure the results on video were consistent. The magic of TH-cam, haha!
pretty lucky to work in a pretty high end cabinet shop and i ended up with... an empire square lol.. honestly for any freehand stuff im gonna do its plenty good enough. if i need anything better ill use our big slider saw. that woodpecker almost got me.. more money for other tools heh.
I know the line drawing test isn't that hard to do, but I sometimes have a hard time telling how close/parallel the lines are. Or I have trouble with lines that aren't clean and even thickness. I wish there was a not too expensive home tool that I could use to test squares and it would give me some readout of the accuracy.
Thanks for the video and hope to see more soon.
Oooh, this is a great comment. In the past (when I was a bit obsessive and not trusting of this test) I’d pull out a double-ended compass (two sharp ends used for getting distances on maps). I’d then make it so there was more distance between the lines and use that to check the spacing.
If there was an inexpensive home tool to test squares, there would be INexpensive squares.
1”2”3” blocks.
Thanks for this video. I have the 7" Irwin square. Last time I checked, the inner side of the ruler blade is not square. I wonder if you can check it on yours. I'm curious what the result will be.
Thanks for watching! I just checked the Irwin and the inner side is very slightly out of square, but not too bad. For general construction, it’s very much within the tolerance I expected.
User error on the larger IGaging square. Lol I too have basically the same squares and they’re all basically Woodpecker square….
Unfortunately it wasn’t user error on the iGaging, it’s just out of square. I still really like iGaging as my other products from them have been perfect and their quality control is quite good. I just got unlucky with this particular unit. I’d still very much recommend them as a brand.
I had a cheap 12" combo square when I started, It was ok for a while. As soon as my budget could afford I bought both a 12" & 6" Starrett. combo set. A bit pricey but both were dead accurate right out of the box, and three years of daily use are still dead accurate.
I have wood and brass bora that is twenty some years old that is my go too.
I have checked the width of the blade and found some variation top to bottom using a digital caliper. like a machining problem.
I have the same set of woodpeckers squares, and I hate the 150mm. Have you noticed that the inside and outside scales on it are off by a multiple of 5 mm rather than a multiple of 10 mm? That means the indexing holes can only be used in reference to one of the two edges. They tried to cut corners by making the base the same as the imperial version (25 mm), but they could have avoided the problem simply by rounding down its size to 20 mm (or even rounding it up to 30 mm, although that would have likely cost more). It's certainly square, but it's poorly designed.
The 300 mm version doesn't have the same problem though, because they made its base 40 mm wide. And I do love that larger one.
Ahhh, I can’t unsee this now! That hasn’t really played into the way I do my marking but I was just reviewing what you said and completely understand this frustration with the indexing holes.
Irwin and a machinist square all day long. If I ever decide to build museum quality anything ( that would be never) I'd consider woodpecker. There is absolutely no reason in the world for the pricing on them. None. Except all the marketing done by high-end cabinet shops whose smallest project starts at $ 5000. Look at me I have a whole red wall of tools worth 20k just to measure within one-thousandths of an inch. And you need these too or you are not a real woodworker. Oh and here's my 20 thousand dollar chisel collection. And don't forget Festool. Or a CNC. For a mere 100k you too can be a woodworker and make a shoe rack for your wife.
Love this comment as it shares the reality of these types of tools. Now it’s time to go buy a Felder sliding table saw and 5HP 30” planer, haha!
Agree Woodpeckers tools are expensive and I don’t know how they price their tools. But the woodpeckers tools I do have are excellent quality. Also their customer service and is excellent for the two times I had issues. I also like to support US companies as to many items are not, example Craftsman tools with use to be may go to brand before started to be made outside US and they declined in quality
Have you tried them though? I mean the woodpecker stuff? It’s kinda like a Lie Nielsen plane. Sure an old Stanley can get you there but the journey is so much better.
That is not the way to hold a square for accuracy. The whole test is flawed for that reason. I could see the square move slightly on a couple of the tests.
I agree his tests were extremely flawed. The theory is sound, but his execution was very inconsistent and imprecise. He also should’ve used a drafters, mechanical pencil that would ensure much more consistent/precise line width.
I have a digital angle finder for a while now and I loved it unfortunately when I went to grab it recently I found the blade bent in half so sad day
Ah, that’s a shame! I just picked up the Klein 935DAF last week and love it.
00:27 Canadian found.
Instead of drawing a line, I just carefully rest the square on a straight metal bar/ruler as I think it's more precise.
Got a link to a good marking knife?
Indeed I do! I've been using this one from Big Horn for 5+ years and it's been great. Lee Valley might have some nicer looking ones, but I can't see them being with 2-3x the price.
US link: amzn.to/445inbR
CA link: amzn.to/3NXpVYw
I use starrett
I build birdhouses. I would say 1/16th will pass. My 82 year old eyes can't see much closer than that.
I think woodpecker tools are for people who have a rich dad to but them stuff.
The large iGaging is trash and one of the smaller as well. I bought a Veiko brand from China that was inaccurate and it went in the trash. I have one Woodraphic that is square when checked with my Woodpeckers so I call it square.
Thanks for sharing! It’s shocking how out of square some of these can be.
Think you need to repeat the iGauge test. Just because you cut a line with the track saw does not guarantee that the line was cut straight. I would re test it very close to the woodpecker and also in a different spot maybe towards the right. If all of those show same result, then you got a dud and need to return it as defective.
Unfortunately the iGaging was a dud. I have a handful of other iGaging products that are perfect, so this should be a one-off defective unit.
What's the chance of: the WP is in a good spot, the Irwin is also in a good spot, some how the ig fell in a bad spot right in the middle of the 2 good spots??? A dud is a dud.
Im not claiming that it's not a Dud, it probably is. I'm just saying that before you go calling somebody's baby ugly, you better have PROVED beyond any reasonable doubt that its ugly, and that was not done here with just a single flip of the square at different spots on the material from the spots that the other squares faired well with. At the very least, you got to use the exact same spots that the other squares gave good results on, and then if you still get bad results, then yes it is indeed a Dud. It probably is a Dud (IAW Occams Razor) but like I said, we need proof before making bad claims on usually reliable product brands. IMHO of course ;-)@@myledang
@@MasonWoodshop you'd use a punch to adjust a rafter square. I don't see why it wouldn't work on your square that you don't think is adjustable. Metal is a plastic material.
I ordered the layout square set - the larger 12 inch square was off by over 1/8 of an inch. Totally unbelievable after paying 135 CAD for the set. Treid calling dealing with thier customer service but they spoke very poor English/Chinese (God bless America I guess). I wouldn't recomend this product or company
Wow, that’s awful! There is so much positive content on iGaging out there, and I have generally been happy with the precision of most of my iGaging products. But the quality control on some of their items is concerning.
Imaging is not premium
a 3, 4, 5 triangle is square too. Because math.
$140 for a square?? LMAO 😅😅😅 Seriously only an idiot would buy one 😊. 😮
Nice review, but ur the only guy that has negative things to say about igaging
I’ve been a big proponent of iGaging tools and love my two sets of squares from them (these ones were all stainless steel). The only issue I’ve had was with the one in this video, which just wasn’t square. I’m hopeful that this is rare and it just happened that mine was out of square as a one-off.
@@MasonWoodshop you’re not the only guy to have negative things to say about igaging. I bought the same layout squares, the 7” and 12” versions, and both are not square. I also checked the inside edges of both with the same results.
@@bretthollenbeck812 Thanks for sharing your experience. I really do think iGaging makes great products at reasonable prices, but their QA could be better to prevent these types of issues.