First off, this is my Friday rant. Secondly I hope that the dimensions come through on this. I am attaching a third party print we received to build a weld fixture and machining fixture for. I am seeing this more and more often. I often wonder what people are doing in college when they are supposed to be learning at the very least a fundamental understanding of how to detail a part and how the views are related to each other.
Meh ... I've seen a lot worse ... Haha, at least it's only one view that's off.
My personal favorite now-a-days is the note that almost every complicated part we get says ... "Build per 3D model, Standard Tolerances and ISO Standards Apply", Say what?
Of course there are no prints, nor does it say on the Purchase Order what the "Standard Tolerances" are or what ISO Standard they want applied.
Edit: Watch that hole, my guess is it's actually at 1.368" ... lol
Sad part is most schools do not teach Drafting Standards.
This would not make the top 50 list of bad drawings I've seen.
So what is actually wrong with this drawing?
Too many dimensions? Not enough?
It's in First Angle, not Third Angle... but is there anything wrong with the views?
Yup, the view that represents the bottom is actually the Top View
Nothing wrong with that, that's proper First Angle projection.
Fair enough Sarah ... I'm so accustomed to 3rd Angle I've assumed it was wrong without seeing the title block.
Fair enough on the first angle projection, although on our prints we denote in the title block that it is 3rd or first depending on customer.
My true issue with this print and most others I receive is the notes attached "Reference 3D model" and the lack of actual dimensioning.
Dimension to build vs. relying on a model. In this case we received no model and could not get one in time to quote and start tooling the project. Is there enough information here to accomplish that? Yes if you believe the part is symmetrical and there is no variance from edge to edge of the part.
My intent on showing this wasn't this was the worst print I have seen.
This is becoming more and more common, don't fully dimension the part rely on cad data instead to get your parts made. That is great if you are an internal company unto yourself. When you send it to someone else, though your print should be legible and have the information to effectively communicate the intent of the part along with dimensioning that follows along with it.
It was my Friday rant because I had a whole week of little to no proper information prints.
The vast majority of the prints I received last week for quotes were noted see cad model.
So that is truly what my rant is for, I really had no problem with first angle other than the fact that it was not noted in the titleblock. You couldn't see that because I left it out on purpose. There is no finger pointing on my part and saying one person is better than another.
I have just noticed that this is becoming more common, and I come from an era when my prints I used to read for equipment were hand drawn assemblies on "D" & "E" sheets with the note at the bottom saying "dowel @ assembly".
or GD&T
-If they had added center lines it would have translated better/
- Implied symmetry, often lost in translation, often the inexperienced mark-up drawings whilst not knowing about it....
- 1st angle proj. may have been called out on the print, but you hadn't presented the TB.
This isn't that bad.
I had thought the implied symmetry was the main beef. I don't like it without a feature control frame, because it the tolerance implications are ambiguous. But I see it everywhere, so I can't get too amped up about it.
The Datum B makes everything legit (almost) 
Meanwhile, this drawing from another thread busts into the top 10 with a bullet:
Some major shimming the brake press to get that one right
Normally the side view is to the left in 1st angle.
You'd rather see 86° 40' 30" instead of 80.675°?
None of those are true angles. They are projected, unless I'm totally misreading this drawing (always a strong possibility). Those angles should not be shown in those views.
You guys are lucky you actually get drawings with actual CAD data. More then a few times I have got PDF's with a blurry shape on it and told we need to quote it.
Kind of hard reading Degrees, Minutes & Seconds with a Digital Dial Caliper
Well, some of them may be true, but 97.799 definitely is not.
You don't have sextant in your drawer John?
Right. 3 digit angles on a sheet metal part. Because a lot of optical fixturing is done with sheet metal, these days.
Tim Taby there's just a lot of things in my drawers - we surely don't want to get caught up with the direction of the speculation, but kinda secret and victorian, like old fashion, just like the tune "me and you and a dog named boo"
Can't be projected, there's no indication. (Not to mention the lack of bend radius...perfectly sharp?)
Hahahha - Thats when you wip out the dart board, hang it behind your chair and throw the dart over the shoulder..
-If they had added center lines it would have translated better/
- Implied symmetry, often lost in translation, often the inexperienced mark-up drawings whilst not knowing about it....
- 1st angle proj. may have been called out on the print, but you hadn't presented the TB.
This isn't that bad.