Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the subject than myself could explain what the difference between a rabbet and a dado is? Thanks. cbustapeck 05:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- You could do no better than to read the articles here on dado (joinery) and rabbet, complete with pictures by yours truly! SilentC 06:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Incase it eludes you, the chief difference is that a rebate (or what you call a rabbet) is cut into the edge of a board, so that it only has two sides, whereas a dado is cut in the 'field' of the board, so that it has three sides. A dado is further differentiated from a groove, in that it runs perpendicular to the grain, whereas the latter runs parallel to it. SilentC 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a curious inquiry about one of the methods listed, handsaw and chisel. It may be my screwed up way of doing rabbets, but I don't use a chisel at all. I saw down to the depth I need on the face, and then saw inward from the side. No chiseling is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Cutting a rabbet with a bandsaw? I don't think so. You can cut a tenon with a bandsaw, but the only way you are going to cut a rabbet is with the wood standing edge on in the throat of the bandsaw and the edge being shorter than the throat. In any case this would be a terrible approach to cutting a rabbet. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC) puddingpimp
Rabbet vs Rebate: What is 'standard english?'Edit
According to the references, 'rabbet' is used in North American English; in some unspecified other place, 'rabbet' is archaic and replaced with 'rebate'.
The first sentence's parenthetical "(rebate in Standard English)" is quite unclear. "Standard English" is a blanket term for any dialect of English that an English-speaking country recognizes as normal. Said another way, 'Rabbet' is correct in the Standard English of the United States, and it's unclear which Standard English recommends 'rebate.'
If the intended interpretation is that 'rebate' is used in, for instance, the U.K., then it should say 'rebate in U.K. English'. If the intention is to say that 'rebate' is used everywhere except USA and Canada, then it should probably say that. Wherever it's used, this use of 'Standard English' is wholly ambiguous.
Thanks, 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the rabbet/rebate debate (dabbet?). The Shorter Oxford Dictionary says that rebate (to mean the joinery term as opposed to cash returned) is an alternative to rabbet, which is where the SOD has its main entry. Both rebate and rabbet are from the same French "rabattre", to beat down. But rebate wasn't used to mean rabbet until the late 17th century, while rabbet is LME (late Middle English - 15th Century in effect). But when I was taught carpentry at a school in SE England - Sussex - in the 1960s, the word was definitely "rebate". I suspect that there may be a possibility that in what we then called the Home Counties - and that's pretty much like saying "Standard English" - rebate was preferred to rabbet. I'll amend the text in the article.Thomas Peardew (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Rebate is English English, Rabbet is American EnglishEdit
Rebate is English English (i.e. English as spoken and written by the English) and British English (probably Australian, New Zealand and South African English too; I expect Canada might go either way, depending on an individual's influences). Rebate is American English. Brits often understand American terms, as well as their own, the reverse is seldom true it seems. FYI American spellings, as well as English spellings, are now accepted as correct in English GCSE examinations - so either word, rebate or rabbet, should be acceptable here in England now - although rabbet might be mistaken for a badly spelt rabbit (or wabbit in Elmer Fudd English :) ).
Yes a lot of carpentry terms come from French but rarely do they pass unscathed into English and thence American English! ;)
Umm...I don't think you can write "it's like a butt joint, but has more advantages" without, you know, citing any...wait for it...advantages! In my opinion, the biggest advantage is the increased surface area for glue. You would also be locating in an additional plane.
I wouldn't, but I guess you could argue it hides the end grain of the inserted panel, but you would also have to be strategic about the piece of wood you're putting the rabbet into. If we're talking about the side+back of a cabinet, you can easily hide the end grain of the back, but you would have to make sure the grain on the *sides* ran north/south or a "sliver" of end grain would still be showing, making everything for naught. You mind as well make the grain of the back panel run north/south and butt joint!
--2601:2C7:8300:784:9022:1457:A049:2D55 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)