On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Ken Follett wrote:

> My guess: wood can be switched in type, requiring someone to make sure poplar
> is not used where oak is specified. Wood can also be of a lesser quality than
> specified or plagued with various imperfections such as knots or worms. From
> 1820-1850 I imagine you will find that the use of wood for structural reasons
> ie. bridge trusses is prevalent, making inspection not an aesthetic issue,
> but one of safety in construction. Contemporary comparison would be
> specialized inspectors of structural steel, particularly on-site inspection
> of welds. Wood continues to be inspected and graded, though with an emphasis
> on the manufacturing end of the cycle and not at the receiving end on a
> project. There are associations dedicated to grading and inspection of wood
> products, of which these early wood inspectors were likely the predecessors.
> Wood in urban construction is not as important as it used to be. Rumor is
> that 95% of "carpenters" in NYC do not know what wood is -- they do know
> steel stud, sheetrock and EIFS.

My research on the early history of concrete construction (e.g., trade
journals in the 1900-1920 era) yielded many references to the necessity of
having inspectors or testers who would check the loads of cement coming to
the job site.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com