Replies

1. 
   lwilliams | Nov 09, 2005 11:27pm | #1

   Brill,

   I just ran your post under the nose of our newest business partner, a long time carver and tool history enthusiast. He's also a contributing editor for another woodworking magazine and hesitant to post here. Ironically, he just did a presentation on the history and principles of carving tools at the annual fall meet of Midwest Tool Collectors.

   Part of that presentation covered exactly your question but for London pattern carving tools. He's confident the same principles apply to Pfeil and other German pattern tools though the numbering system is a little different.

   He's had plans for some time to do an article on just this subject but has agreed to put the basic information on our web site where it can be copyrighted. It'll take a couple days for us to get it there. I'll hunt this thread down and post a link to it when it's ready.

2. 
   LeeGrindinger | Nov 10, 2005 01:05am | #2

   Brill, you have stumbled on one of the great mysteries of the world. I have a theory about how the English Sheffield system originated but cannot for the life of me figure out why the Swiss wouldn't correct this befuddled sizing system. I have discussed it with Tim Effrem but neither of us has the time to plot all the arcs to identify a pattern, it would be quite an undertaking.

   At any rate, carving tool edges are moved towards the center of the steel as you sharpen them. Properly sharpened they will have a bevel honed into both faces and this will change the arc from the ground-only version you buy.

   Yes, the fishtail sweep should be the same as a straight tool sweep assuming identical widths.

   Larry, didn't you and I discuss this several years ago? You had a buddy in the midwest somewhere with his theory about this lunacy of tool sizing, is he the one writing for the competition? I still think it originated as a cone shaped form in a blacksmith's shop, as the need grew so did the number of cones.

   The #6 cone was used to shape all the #6 tools and as they grew in width the sweep grew less quick as the smithy used wider parts of the cone. It would take plotting all the sweeps on a cone and doing it for enough sweeps to convince myself and since I'm not looking for a thesis to write I'll probably never follow up. Oh well, the mystery is probably more fun anyway. The manufacturing process has changed since the origination of the sizing system so I'm really not sure it would be definitive anyway.

   Hey, Mr. Williams, it's good to see you on the boards again.

   Lee

1. 
   brill | Nov 10, 2005 02:08am | #3

   Maybe the good editors of FWW would consider doing an article in a future issue on what is known about this particular 'mystery of the world". I was looking back through some of my earlier issues of FWW (early 1980's B&W issues, I think) and it seems to me that such articles were once in vogue as there was an article with many B&W picts about the production of woodworking machines - jointers is what I seem to recall that this particular article was about. Seems to me that a good "Histoy of ......whatever" article now and then in FWW might be of some general interest. Of course I'd nominate "History & mystery of carving tool sizes" as a possible topic.......LOL!! Perhaps this would save a few of us from the tempetation of figuring this out individually.

2. 
   lwilliams | Nov 10, 2005 02:33am | #4

   Hi Lee,It's been busy here. I wish I'd been able to make your event last summer but I was racing to get everything in place for another person to join us. I'm thrilled he's finally here after years of groveling to get him to consider the move. He's the guy I put you in touch with a few years ago and he's been busy on his own as well. The book he coauthored on British saw makers just came out and his recent article on early carpenters' rules should change the way a lot of people think about the accuracy of early craftsmen and their tools.Don't hesitate to offer your own perspective here Lee. The more information the better.

3. 
   Patto | Nov 10, 2005 05:18am | #5

   Lee,

   I bought a book years ago by a bloke starting with W on blacksmithing - his peice-d'resitance being carving tools. He made no reference at al to traditional sizing, it was more a make what you need sort of approach. Very imortantly, his tools are a cone in shape to reduce the radius of a curve he can carve compared with a gouge with parallel sides. Anyway (for your sharpening guru hat) one of his key recommendations was to grind and sharpen these cone shaped tools with the corners well forward. My geometry tells me that the angled cross section of a cone is an elipse - ie quicker in the middle than the edges. His appraoch was based on reducing chips by cutting the surface first, but it would have an effect on the shape of the cut.

   What do you think on this? perhaps the parallel sides are recent and older gouges were conical - of which a fishtail is an extreme?

   So this tool history stuff is interesting. I was a an old tool sale recently and saw many old english gouges - described as in cannel and out cannel (sp?). these were long tools and had much more meat than modern gouges. Were they the standard tools of carver? and why did they change?

   Thanks

   Dave

1. 
   LeeGrindinger | Nov 10, 2005 05:44pm | #6

   Dave, I have heard of carvers who grind their gouges the way you describe with the tips forward. If it works for them, great. I don't teach it this way because the tool is always angled above the work and this in itself places the tips forward when the grind is square. When you grind the edge at such a tips forward angle you lose some of the modelling capabilities of a gouge. This grind also makes it harder to use the tool with the concave side against the workpiece. But, to each his own and if it's working for someone they should carry on. I teach square grinding, it's best for general use gouges. A gouge is meant to be used from either face and when the grind is off square by much you begin to lose some of this versatility.As to the cannels, in cannels are speciality tools, common in chairmaker's shops for instance for cutting straight sided round mortises. In cannels are not common in a carver's bench because they are not necessary in carving. An in cannel is sharpened just like a bench chisel, with the face opposite the grind very straight and the honing done on the ground face only. This will produce straight sided mortises in the same way a flat backed bench chisel will produce flat faces. Timber framers, boat builders and chairmakers are a few trades that would have these speciality tools in their boxes.Carving gouges are used from either face and a bevel is honed into both faces to make it possible to use the unground face. Standard tools for a carver would depend on what sort of carving the carver is doing. I do small stuff, ornamental work for furniture, so my tools all have tangs which make for lighter tools. Larger work, say full scale sculpture, would require larger tools and heavier use, socket tools would be the way to go for this work because they are stronger.Lee

1. 
   Patto | Nov 11, 2005 03:51am | #7

   Thanks

1. 
   LeeGrindinger | Nov 11, 2005 06:29pm | #8

   You're welcome

2. 
   LeeGrindinger | Nov 12, 2005 03:05am | #9

   So..., I don't get it...,Why was my post such a conversation stopper?Too much?Too little?Condescending?Full of sh!it?Jeez, a thread comes along in which I have some measure of expertise and it's dead almost as soon as it's born.What gives?Lee (missing the long threads)

3. 
   Patto | Nov 15, 2005 04:53am | #12

   Lee,

   had go go and find the new site to reply - this web stuff is just like fine wood work, the designers all assume that we want all of the tools available in the cata logue without actually asking what we want to achieve. Oh well, it loks pretty.

   Your answer made sense -I probably dont need any of these tools (the long patternmakers gouges and matching paring chisels), but if I came across a single-user collection of half a dozen at a tool swap I probably couldnt resist - which is why I take a fixed amount of cash to these events.

   About the shape of gouges. There are two or three important shapes to a gouge (my view). The sweep dictates the cross section of the cut. The dergree of 'crank' or 'bent' seems to be about accessbility, but the neglected bit seems to be the long shape.

   When people talk about fairing a curve with an oscillating sander they either have nerves of steel or are kidding themselves; which is why we had compass planes and why when we 'fair' an edge for gluing we use a #7, not an oscillating sander.

   I can get the cross section of a hollow pretty right - I just adjust the design to suit the gouges either at hand or in budget. Where I have trouble is with the fairing the shape of the hollow. (sort of eliminating all of the nasty little wobbles) The cone-shaped gouges described by Weydgers (sp?) seemed designed to maintain a consistent cross section on a tight radius and would be pretty useful at the start of a spiral. I have the opposite problem. Big sweeping curves around the back of a Victorian chair.

   So your comment said to me - the incannel tools were not the tool for the job

   Dave

4. 
   Patto | Nov 17, 2005 04:52am | #13

   Lee,

   So how do I tackle this proble of fair curves (on carving)? Is it just an issue of practice? I am reasonably confident abouut the initial draughting of the design - its the execution that lets me down.

   Dave

2. 
   lwilliams | Nov 12, 2005 08:09am | #11

   Dave,There are a lot of kinds of gouges that aren't specifically carving tools. There are firmer or bench gouges for heavy wasting of stock; paring gouges for coping, or deep work; and pattern makers' gouges which usually have cranked necks. These almost always have shoulders with parallel sides where carving tools have a relatively uniform taper to the bolster. Paring gouges and pattern maker's gouges are incannel. One of the most unusual gouges is the sash coping gouge. One side of the handle extends about half-way down the blade.I find modern carving chisels heavier than the old ones. The old ones were thinner in cross-section. They usually weren't quite as thin as today's Pfeil chisels. The new carving tools seem heavy and clumsy to me. I've ground the thickness of my newer chisels quite a bit to get a similar feel to my old ones.

3. 
   lwilliams | Nov 12, 2005 07:21am | #10

   Sorry for the delay. It takes some of us longer than others to negotiate our way through the digital World.

   Don's short article on carving gouge sweeps is at:

   http://www.planemaker.com/articles/gouges.html