What’s the difference between shakes and shingles?
Q: What’s the difference between shakes and shingles?
A: It kind of depends on whom you ask. But according to the National Park Service, who are the go-to authority for preserving and rehabilitating historic buildings, the difference comes down to production method and appearance. Shingles today are generally machine-sawn, but as a building technology they predate mass production and were traditionally hand-split and hand-planed to achieve a smooth surface. Shakes are larger and have a decidedly rougher, more textured look, but don’t be deceived. The shake is a sawn product born of 20th-century mass production, and is intentionally left irregularly shaped and undressed (i.e. not planed) to look more “rustic” and “historic” than the actually-historic shingle.
Here in the United States, our love affair with shingle roofs dates back to the colonial period. Wood was all over the Americas in the form of old-growth forests. At the same time in Europe, where old-growth forests had already been decimated, roofs were more commonly fashioned of thatch, slate, and tile.
Before the advent of sawmills in the 19th century, shingles were made from sections of log called “bolts” that were cut to the desired length of the shingle (today, shingles are 14” to 36” long). The bolt was quartered, and a mallet and froe used to split or rive out thin sheets of wood along the grain. These sheets tended to be 3/8” to 3/4” thick and could be the same width or different widths (generally between 3” and 8”). The shingles were then hand-planed or hand-dressed for a smooth finish to help them lay tighter and protect against water infiltration.
It's important that shingles be smooth, of uniform thickness, and not too wide or short. Too thick, and the overlaid shingles don't have enough room to expand in wet conditions. Too wide, and the shingles warp or “cup” when wet. Too short, and water enters through the spaces between the shingles.
Sawmills made it easier and faster to make shingles that met all these requirements, and to produce a lot of them. It’s no coincidence that the architectural styles in vogue by the mid-nineteenth century, such as Queen Anne and Carpenter Gothic, made generous use of shingles of various shapes and sizes for both roofs and siding.
Today you can find both shakes and shingles present on restored and rehabilitated historic buildings. Are commercially-produced shakes acceptable to use on historic buildings? Again, it depends on whom you ask. But if you ask the National Park Service, the answer is no. Mass-produced shakes are not historic building materials, and you’re not doing a historic building any favors by trying to make it look “more” historic.
The images below show shingles used as gable siding on a home in Helena’s South Central neighborhood, and cedar shingles being removed from the roof of the Baxendale Schoolhouse outside Helena as part of a Preserve Montana workshop. Note the silvered color of the shingles, which along with their thinness betrays their age. Images courtesy of SHPO staff.
