# Selling 2x4s



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

hdavis said:


> I guess they should say nominal size at the store. The industry standard for nominals and actuals are accepted as a voluntary standard by NIST:
> 
> http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/vps/PS-20-10.pdf


Right, and the problem was that Lowes was selling "2x4"'s that didn't meet NIST standards (i.e. they weren't 1.5" x 3.5"). 
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/busine...=email&utm_campaign=RDU_091114&day=2014-09-11


I know it's fun to bash California, but if your lumberyard was selling 1 5/16 x 3 3/8 lumber as "2x4" you'd have a beef too.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> Right, and the problem was that Lowes was selling "2x4"'s that didn't meet NIST standards (i.e. they weren't 1.5" x 3.5").
> http://www.remodeling.hw.net/busine...=email&utm_campaign=RDU_091114&day=2014-09-11
> 
> 
> I know it's fun to bash California, but if your lumberyard was selling 1 5/16 x 3 3/8 lumber as "2x4" you'd have a beef too.


No where in this article does it say they weren't 1.5" X 3.5" it clearly says because it was labeled as a 2"x4" it was labeled incorrectly. 
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/busine...=email&utm_campaign=RDU_090814&day=2014-09-08
Here's how it had to be fixed. 

Lowe's has new rules regarding how it can label building products in California. A Superior Court judge laid out terms by which the retailer must advertise its 2x4s and other dimensional materials in a $1.6 million*settlement order and*final judgement*filed on*August 27. The order, brought on as part of a civil consumer protection action,*lists three main rules for the retailer to follow going forward:

"Common descriptions" must be followed by actual dimensions and labeled as such. For instance, a 2x4 must be followed with a disclaimer that the wood is actually 1.5-inches by 3.5-inches and include a phrase equal or similar to "actual dimensions."


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

There are kiln dried studs. Not generally used for building. Mostly for interior retrofit work.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> Right, and the problem was that Lowes was selling "2x4"'s that didn't meet NIST standards (i.e. they weren't 1.5" x 3.5").
> http://www.remodeling.hw.net/busine...=email&utm_campaign=RDU_091114&day=2014-09-11
> 
> 
> I know it's fun to bash California, but if your lumberyard was selling 1 5/16 x 3 3/8 lumber as "2x4" you'd have a beef too.


California deserves all the bashing it gets. Please show me where they were sued for selling a 2"x4" 1 5/16 x 3 3/8. Also it's very common for lumber to be a little inconsistent.


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> California deserves all the bashing it gets. Please show me where they were sued for selling a 2"x4" 1 5/16 x 3 3/8. Also it's very common for lumber to be a little inconsistent.


They didn't say it was 1 5/16 x 3 3/8. That was just my example.

What they said (you did click my link, right?) was that Lowes was selling lumber that didn't meet NIST specs. So the whole "Typical stupid California doesn't know a 2x4 is 1.5" x 3.5"" meme is incorrect. The DA has no problem with selling a 1.5" x 3.5" stick as a 2x4. 

From the link:
"“If it’s a softwood product like 2x4 lumber and it actually meets the NIST standards, then they don’t need to [include] the actual dimensions," said Marin County Deputy District Attorney Andy Perez in an interview with REMODELING. Meet that 1.5-inch by 3.5-inch standard, explained Perez, and you're free to call it a 2x4.

Perez said the problem arose when California inspectors found that Lowe's advertised dimensional building products under nominal descriptions when they didn't actually fit the standards set forth by the NIST. "


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> They didn't say it was 1 5/16 x 3 3/8. That was just my example.
> 
> What they said (you did click my link, right?) was that Lowes was selling lumber that didn't meet NIST specs. So the whole "Typical stupid California doesn't know a 2x4 is 1.5" x 3.5"" meme is incorrect. The DA has no problem with selling a 1.5" x 3.5" stick as a 2x4.
> 
> ...


Maybe I missed something, but I thought they were referring to composite lumber in your article.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> They didn't say it was 1 5/16 x 3 3/8. That was just my example.
> 
> What they said (you did click my link, right?) was that Lowes was selling lumber that didn't meet NIST specs. So the whole "Typical stupid California doesn't know a 2x4 is 1.5" x 3.5"" meme is incorrect. The DA has no problem with selling a 1.5" x 3.5" stick as a 2x4.
> 
> ...


I did some framing in your area back in the early 90's. San Rafael to be exact. Boat loads of money in that area. :thumbsup:


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> They didn't say it was 1 5/16 x 3 3/8. That was just my example.
> 
> What they said (you did click my link, right?) was that Lowes was selling lumber that didn't meet NIST specs. So the whole "Typical stupid California doesn't know a 2x4 is 1.5" x 3.5"" meme is incorrect. The DA has no problem with selling a 1.5" x 3.5" stick as a 2x4.
> 
> ...


From your article:

When can't you call it a 2x4? Perez explained that if a dimensional building product fails to meet the NIST nominal standards, or lacks a nominal dimension standard—as is the case with composite wood—you must include actual dimensions in the advertisement.


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I thought they were referring to composite lumber in your article.


The details are weak overall- my take (and I'm not at all certain) is that Lowes was breaking at least two rules: 1) mis-labeling softwood by nominal sizes when it didn't meet NIST standards, AND 2) mislabeling composite wood as softwood lumber, and/or using softwood lumber sizing specs for composite. But it isn't actually clear what exactly the violations were.

What is clear, however, is that California has no problem with anyone selling a softwood "2x4" that measures 1.5" x 3.5"

So everyone who is getting their tricorner hats all rumpled over "stupid California" stuff should take a deep breath and reconsider...


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

It's all pretty vague. I read the actual judgement, and some earlier documents. From these, the issue appeared to arise from sheet goods, not dimensional lumber.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> The details are weak overall- my take (and I'm not at all certain) is that Lowes was breaking at least two rules: 1) mis-labeling softwood by nominal sizes when it didn't meet NIST standards, AND 2) mislabeling composite wood as softwood lumber, and/or using softwood lumber sizing specs for composite. But it isn't actually clear what exactly the violations were.
> 
> What is clear, however, is that California has no problem with anyone selling a softwood "2x4" that measures 1.5" x 3.5"
> 
> So everyone who is getting their tricorner hats all rumpled over "stupid California" stuff should take a deep breath and reconsider...


Only we who live in Cali can ***** about Cali. Kinda like I can call my brother a name but if you do you're getting a beat down. :laughing:


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

hdavis said:


> It's all pretty vague. I read the actual judgement, and some earlier documents. From these, the issue appeared to arise from sheet goods, not dimensional lumber.


The later reporting mentions both dimensional lumber and composite lumber:
"The $1.6 million final judgment that Lowe's Home Centers reached late last month with the State of California appears in part to involve labeling certain non-wood products as wood as well as incorrect labeling of certain other lumber products,"
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/news/d...involves-labeling-non-wood-products-as-wood_o

But it really isn't clear.

But, as I said, what IS clear is that the issue IS NOT that California doesn't know a "2x4" is 1.5" x 3.5"


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> Only we who live in Cali can ***** about Cali. Kinda like I can call my brother a name but if you do you're getting a beat down. :laughing:


Eh, anyone can ***** about anything if they get their facts right.

But when California's the topic a lot of people tend to lose their ability to be factual.


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

(BTW I admit I completely believed the initial reporting that a Marin DA sued because a 2x4 didn't measure 2" x 4". It just seems like something a Marin DA would do, right? I just kept checking the reporting, is all.)


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

kfc510 said:


> (BTW I admit I completely believed the initial reporting that a Marin DA sued because a 2x4 didn't measure 2" x 4". I just kept checking the reporting, is all.)


I'm out of thanks otherwise I would Thank your post, just so you know. I honestly think the news sources don't know thier ass from a hole in the ground.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Welcome to the forum by the way, you'll fit right in. :thumbsup:


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> Welcome to the forum by the way, you'll fit right in. :thumbsup:


Hey, thanks. 

And yeah, the initial reporting dropped the ball. I don't know if it was intentional to generate clicks (like I said, it got me too) or just that it fit everyone's stereotype and the reporters were too lazy to dig deeper until the whole thing blew up.

If you're ever in the east bay I'll buy you a beer (or lunch, or whatever).


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Makes a good story that way.

Nobody seemed to mention that the claimed damages to consumers over the counties involved in the suit was something like $150,000, and that was so little and finding the people that suffered the loss would be so difficult that the judge allowed the DAs offices to split the proceeds and keep it (that's on top of the legal fees awarded).

I'm betting their office parties will do just fine this year.


----------



## kfc510 (Feb 28, 2012)

hdavis said:


> Makes a good story that way.
> 
> Nobody seemed to mention that the claimed damages to consumers over the counties involved in the suit was something like $150,000, and that was so little and finding the people that suffered the loss would be so difficult that the judge allowed the DAs offices to split the proceeds and keep it (that's on top of the legal fees awarded).
> 
> I'm betting their office parties will do just fine this year.


Yeah, huh? "Lowes shall... pay to plaintiff the sum of $1,400,000... in the form of a check payable as follows: "Marin County District Attorney's Office""

Some bonuses being paid over on N. San Pedro, for sure.


----------



## KennMacMoragh (Sep 16, 2008)

66 Shelby said:


> What kind of phucking moron would file a suit like this? The kind of a dipchit that has NO business buying one, that's who. Next they'll be suing because they cut their hand off with the new saw they bought to cut it with. Does Blowes also have to label them that they cause cancer too? Because every single thing I buy nowadays is 'Known to the state of California to cause cancer'.
> 
> I swear I get a headache every time I read about bureaucrats in California and their latest crusade to save us from ourselves.


What do you mean? I thought it was pretty clever, they've been false advertising all these years so someone finally called them on it.


----------

