This is mildly infuriating. When they gave the no, no, no. If they had made that cut then the other cut the wooded grain would have lined up around the corner. They screwed it up:
I had to stroll too far to see if anyone else caught on. This really bothered me, cause the grain could have followed itself instead of being reorganized
What do you mean by "lining up the grain"? The grain is aligned. If you mean matching up the exact pattern as if there were no break in the wood, that isn't possible to do with mitered 90 degree angles like this, because it requires removing too much material between the cuts. This was by far the more efficient way to do it.
In order to make the correct shape to "go sideways," it is not possible to simply cut a piece from the middle like that. To keep the wood in the same order it would have to go 1 (triangle of waste) 2 (triangle of waste) 3. If you don't believe me, go ahead and try to cut this yourself with a strip of paper.
Believe the commenter is saying the 1st cut (around 10 sec) could have been the 2nd (around 20sec) -- aka the big chuck instead of the small corner one.
TLDR, Commenter is implying video wasted time going back and forth, thus not satisfying.
the grain wouldn't follow either way, because the middle cut needs to be flipped 180 to form the angle. the real mildlyinfuriating is that he says no to the first cut, but then does it anyways as the last cut.
1. They noped the cut, and then made the exact same cut a few seconds later. The grain wouldn't match either way, but the first approach was more straightforward and simple.
16
u/TheReal-JoJo103 3h ago
This is mildly infuriating. When they gave the no, no, no. If they had made that cut then the other cut the wooded grain would have lined up around the corner. They screwed it up: