I recently was forced to buy a new set of chisels [my old set, given to me used with polished backs ‘picked up legs’ – I’m being charitable]. The first task is to polish and hone the backs.
Being an amateur, I started with a medium [1/2″]width to get a feel for the balance of the tool.
While doing so I noticed that the waterstone was abrading only the tip and the point of contact with the edge of the stone. Thinking that this was my amateur technique I persisted, and eventually got a flat polished surface. I moved on to a second chisel and the same thing occured. Only then did I think to check the chisel for straightness of the back. All of the chisels have a bow from near the handle to the tip, 1MM for the shorter chisels and 1.5 – 2 MM for the longer.
Is this normal? The result is that the now polished 2 inches of the flat back is slightly out of alignment with the ‘line’ of the chisel.
All advise deeply appreciated.
Ken leitner
Replies
Ken,
In the past, I've had antique chisels that were out of flat and I flattened them as you probably will or should. I don't know how common a phenomenon this is with respect to new chisels. With older chisels, you can rest assured the backs will be out of flat by that amount or more. I guess the question I have is does it matter?
I think it matters for sharpening, but not neccessarily for paring. I know there are a lot of folks who pare with the flat side down. I'm not one of them.
Adam
Adam, You said,
I know there are a lot of folks who pare with the flat side down. I'm not one of them.
I am assuming that you mean that you pare with the bezel down against the work surface. I have done this at times when I didn't have sufficient clearance to pare with the flat side down. But feel that flat side down paring gives me more control and the opportunity to register against another reference edge, like a miter template.
What advantages do you feel you get when paring your way? I'm curious!
Best Regards,
David C
I could be wrong, but I think chisels don't do what people think they do. I think chisels are wedges and a chisel held on its flat will tear out or submarine. If you think of it, that's what the wear (that spot in front of the blade) on a plane is for.Here's another example, when paring a mortise side (something I don't do or recommend, BTW), a chisel held vertically will under cut. It doesn't want to take a uniform shaving. It wants to pick up and fiber, then dive for the center of the wood.Just suppose you buy any of this, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't- I hold the chisel bevel down and rock that baby as I cut to control the depth of the cut, not unlike how you would handle a carving gouge. I also hold my chisel like a 4 year old holds a crayon and I push its handle with my shoulder.One more thing- FWW has missed a couple opportunities to delve deeply into chisels. I've written a little about them, but I'm really the wrong guy for that job. In my opinion, there's a whole world of things to do with chisels that are:
1) rarely discussed
2) not supported by modern chisel makers
3) never written about in magazinesI think chisels were once feature creators, not feature refiners/fixers. Ya know where you get to see this? I'm going to Williamsburg for the conference next month and those craftsmen do stuff with chisels that would knock your socks off. I saw Andy Dick carve out an arched raised panel 2 years ago. It was very tricky geometry that I've heard folks ask about in the past. I'm going to tell you he had that thing done while he was teaching, and positioning the thing for the cameras, in like 10 minutes. And it looked beautiful. I think he did the whole job with a 1" firmer. Outstanding.Adam
I agree with Adam about paring bevel down. There is a sense of control you get by "rocking on the bevel." With this method, one can control the depth a little better, especially if the grain of the wood wants to take the chisel in an unwanted direction. That said,I still believe that paring with the bevel up gives a more precise cut or straighter cut; it really depends on the angle that you are able to bear on the work piece with the chisel.
Earlier Adam wrote: I know there are a lot of folks who pare with the flat side down. I'm not one of them.
Then, I think chisels are wedges and a chisel held on its flat will tear out or submarine. If you think of it, that's what the wear (that spot in front of the blade) on a plane is for.
Thought provoking Adam. However I have concerns about such an approach (without, from memory, having attempted it).
Your strategy assumes that the bevel edge is flat, since this will then replace the traditional chisel back. Now, unless you have made a specific effort to hone a flat bevel, this cannot be. I freehand most of my chisels. These are all hollow ground. A hollow ground bevel will sit flat on the sharpening media more easily than a flat bevel, but it lacks registration area when used for paring. A chisel with a flat bevel, when freehand honed, inevitably developed a rounded bevel (well mine do). Again, the registration would be poor.
Take the above as questions ... hypotheses? I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Derek,I don't necessarily ride the bevel at all. You know, I'm no carver, tho I've been practicing. But I look at it the same. My bevels are mostly convex or flat. Look- this is one of those subjects that I'm not sure about. So just try it and see what you think. But to the OP, I'm not sure where the requirement to have dead flat chisel backs came from. Carving tools don't have flat backs and they sure do cut well. Ditto for plane irons. All I can figure is the flat black helps for sharpening. But you don't really need it for working.Forget me, will somebody email Mr. Charlesworth and ask him? He'll be able to shed some light on this issue.Adam
Interesting thoughts as always, Adam.
I thinks it's difficult to meaningfully talk about chisel usage in general terms. Rather, in order to be meaningful, the discussion needs to take place in the context of a given specific chiseling task.
Or approached another way, there are important distinctions to be made, such as:
cutting in long or end grain
cuts perpendicular vs parallel to the main surface
chopping cuts where force is perpendicular to the blade's edge vs. paring cuts where a slicing action which force is being applied closer to parallel to the blade's cutting edge
Chisel behave differently in each of these situations in my experience. For example, chopping oriented cuts made by hand to pare are limited to very thin shavings to maintain control and achieve a good result.
On the topic at hand, let me address a specific situation: when I make through dovetails, like most people, I intentionally make the ends proud by a 1/32 or so. I know some folks swear by planes to clean this up, and I've used planes effectively, but the risk of break out on the ends with a plane is greatly heightened, so I tend to pare with a chisel first and only do the last finest shavings with a plane. In this use, the flat back placed on the draw side is strong register and helps immensly in executing very clean and true slicing paring cuts. Now, the backs of my old chisels are not perfect, nor have I sought to make more than the last inch or so polished and absolutely flat. So like a lot of things in woodworking, my sense is that as long as things are not really out of whack - as long as the chisel is reasonably flat - it will perform fine in an operation like this.
As for paring the sides of mortises, I'm curious why you seem so vehemently against it? Using a reasonably wide chisel (realative to the length of the mortise) and slicing cut rather than a chopping type cut, very good results can be obtained. With the slicing cut (sort of an arc), there is no tendency to dive as the flat back is registering on the upper lip/corner of the mortise (always an accurate part if you've struck it in with a knife and cleaned-up up to that knife line with a sharp chisel).
Just some thoguhts.
Edited 12/14/2006 10:12 am ET by Samson
Edited 12/14/2006 10:31 am ET by Samson
>In this use, the flat back placed onthe draw side is strong register and helps immensly in executing very clean and true slicing paring cuts. <
I agree with this. See photo below. These are the sides of an apothecary cabinet-like smal chest of drawers. 24 dados cut with hand tools (tenon saw, Stanley 39 3/8, and bench chisels). Having the chisels razor sharp to take a very thin shaving and having the backs flat to register in the dados was a big help.
IMO, the reason to polish the back is the same reason to polish the front, and that is reduce friction. Depending on how you use your chisel, you may only want to level and polish a half inch or so, of the blade. That said, I probably use my chisels more back down than bevel down, and I like the cutting edge to register when the blade is dead flat on the board, so that I have a leveling face to work on. If there were any concave bow to the back of the blade, it would tend to push the edge into the wood, which I don't want. So I polish more(depends on how rough it is) than some would. I don't like or use any back bevel on the blade, although I see that some recomend it. I think the most important thing is to have you blade razor sharp.
The rest is technique.
Edited 12/14/2006 12:02 pm by skidoo
I agree with everything you've written. Especially the bit about specific usages.
So at risk of hijacking a thread about sharpening, I'd like to say the following:
I don't make any drawers with through joinery fronts. I tend not to pare or fix in any way rear dovetails (unless they are really bad). So a half blind front is difficult or impossible to pare back side down because of the risk of blowing out the front. So I pare a sort of pyramid shape, and then shave off the top either with my smoother or a wide chisel. Ditto, I don't fix carcass dovetails- or at least not that I recall.
But I think I'd have to say that plane-like registration is unhelpful to me. Now a wide chisel, slicing as you say, with half the edge on a drawer side and half on a proud pin is something I do quite frequently. But again this really must be done bevel down.
As to mortising- I very rarely pare and and when I do its almost always the tenon. But I suspect my idea of a good M&T joint is not universally held!
But back to your original point- no disprespect to FWW intended- Garret Hack wrote about chisel technique some years ago and none of this was covered. That's the sort of forum needed for this because as you say matching techniques to their specific applications is really essential.
Adam
Samson,
I hessitate to enter this discussion as I am a chisel newbie. But as I have been reading, learning and practicing a lot in the last couple of weeks, may I throw in a remark or two?
Your comment that, "in order to be meaningful, the discussion needs to take place in the context of a given specific chiseling task" matches my experience so far.
In making handcut mortises with a mortise chisel, I made the mistake of not flattening the back to at least the depth of the mortise. In fact, the back had a bulge on it about 1 inch from the tip. This pushed the chisel out from the ends of the mortise as I tried to make the final vertical cuts there. The chisel had to be tipped back to get the wall vertical, resulting a rather ragged end-wall.
Subsequently I read in Graham Blackburn's book on handtools that one needs to flatten mortise chisel backs for about 3 inches from the tip, to avoid this very syndrome. He makes a very clear diagram to illustrate what happens if the back is not flat.
In cutting dovetails I have been using a coping saw to cut out most waste then paring the last 1mm down to the scribe lines, using a pair of Two Cherries skew chisels with 20 degree bevels. I flattened the backs of these too; and it does seem to help a newbie like me to get the bottoms of the joints square to the carcase sides, flat across their width and accurately registered to the scribe lines.
I imagine that more experienced chisel users can pare accurately without this help but I need all the aid I can get, as yet, to make decent hand cut joints.
Lataxe
Lataxe, never hesitate to speak from your own direct experience. Even if you haven't been doing a particular activity for years, your direct observations are valid and, indeed, valuable. By the way, I am far from any kind of master (more like far far from it!), I'm just reporting my observations too from actually trying this stuff and figuring out what works.
You sound like a better man than I when it comes to paring dovetails. I use a wheel gauge and marking knife when doing dovetails because those incised/sliced lines are crucial to me obtaining the kind of results I'm satisfied with. When I pare the base line between the pins or the tails, given that it's end grain, I don't even care if it's straight across as long as the error is in favor of the middle being lower than the edges where I am very careful to pare to the scribed line - in other words, I often make a this area into a very slight V since the end grain to long grain meeting is largely irrelevant to the strength of the joint.
I bought a set of socket chisels from Lee Valley a long time ago and the entire set was like yours. I too tried to flatten my new purchase with the oil stones that I had at the time. I gave up quickly and returned them, and to Lee Valley's credit they returned my money with the postage too! (Made me into a believer.) The reason those chisels had the poor shape in the first place was because they had been shaped by hand with belt sanders, and not only were they convex down their length, but across too! When a factory uses a milling machine or surface grinder to make the back they are usually flat enough that only minor flattening is needed, if any. If they are not, it can be because of the amount or sequence of material removal. The stresses in the metal when not removed evenly may result in the chisel bending until the stress is equalized. I am curious to know if your chisels were belt sanded like mine were, or if they have been machined when they were made. If they are machined would you put a straight edge along the top side and see if it has the same bend as the back or if it's straighter? Thanks.
" When I pare the base line between the pins or the tails, given that it's end grain, I don't even care if it's straight across as long as the error is in favor of the middle being lower than the edges where I am very careful to pare to the scribed line - in other words, I often make a this area into a very slight V since the end grain to long grain meeting is largely irrelevant to the strength of the joint."
That is quite correct indeed, and you will be paring using the chisel on its back.
To me chisels are meant to be used either way, the work and ones whims to some extent dictating which way.
Sorry, had to say something there(;)Philip Marcou
Philip,
What's this?! "To me chisels are meant to be used either way, the work and ones whims to some extent dictating which way".
I am quite certain that this is a heresy defined in "Old Cranker's Tome of Woodworking Lawe" and you will have to be dunked into wet sawdust heed-first until you recant. We really can't have people thinking they can learn to chisel by experience rather than from following to the letter The Ancient Wisdom of Old Cranker. Why, you'll be putting an electik motor on one next!
Samson,
Co-incidentally I was reading about your v-cut technique for the bottoms of tail-piece sockets just a few days ago, in an old FWW article by either Rage Fried or another of the FWW Experts of Old (might have been Franka Claus). It certainly makes sense and I tried it - but the skew chisels I have seem to enable a very flat bottom that registers perfectly to the scribe lines (cut with a wheel gauge, like yours) on both sies of the workpiece. I find this easier than cutting the V, which seems to require chisel control I have not quite mastered yet.
I know that theoretically the (tail-bottom) end grain to (pin) side grain is not a strong glue joint; but my experience with end-grain gluing over the years tells me it can add some strength, if you size the end grain and make the joint tight.
So far, the dovetails are coming out neat and tight along all the joins. Must be them Wenzloff saws. :-) However, I have yet to attempt those DTs with only a saw-kerf width at the top of the tail-gaps.....
Hand cut joinery is very satisfying, although it takes me about ten times as long as it would with a Woodrat, at the moment. I expect I'll speed up after the 200th one. :-)
Lataxe, chisel-novice
Dear Adam,
In my shop right now, I'm repairing the bead on the front leg of a Hepplewhite chair I built about 11 yrs ago. The bead was broken off at the floor, and the bottom 3" of it is gone. In preparing the break for a repair, I pared the broken area, between the quirks of the bead, flat. I used a 1/8" wide chisel, on its back. Once started on its journey up the leg, it was self jigging, and it pared a flat surface on which to glue the replacement section of bead. Granted this takes a steady hand, and more than one trip up the rough section to pare down to a flat, clean surface. Trying to take too thick a shaving will definately make the tip of the chisel want to take a dive. But how much more challenging to get to a glue-able surface by "rocking on the bevel"!! Esp with an eighth inch chisel. Dam near impossible, I'd say.
I frequently use the flat back of a chisel to jig itself to form a flat surface. Cutting out the recess for a patch in repairs, as above. Forming flats on the turned shaft of a tripod table, before cutting the dovetail sockets for the legs. Inletting butt hinges.
To get back on topic, I've more than once flattened the back of a severely out of whack blade by carefully grinding it, using a gentle touch on the flat side of the grinding wheel, and referring to a straightedge from time to time. (I know, I know, they'll blow up and shower you with shrapnel if you do this, so don't even try.)
Regards,
Ray Pine
Why are woodworking chisels never ground symmetrically like some knives, but always with one more or less flat side and the wedge on the other? A symmetrical ground chisel would be more or less balanced and go straight into the wood. At a minimum it would give more control than paring with a conventional chisel wedge side down.
Or maybe there is a good reason chisels are the shape they are other than ease of grinding and sharpening.
I don't know about Adam, but I do use some double-bevel straight shank chisels for some paring. But mainly when there are curves in the work. These actually are large old carving chisels. But there is no reason for not grinding a chisel to this shape.
They also have a slight rounded bevel, as do my other carving chisels.
If I were to convert a chisel, it would be a vintage firmer which does not have a bevel edge. Else the bevel would cause two skews, one on the right, one on the left.
Take care, Mike
David,
1) In paring, the back of the chisel provides a "true" surface to hold against the flat surface you are paring off of, or flushing to, as in cutting a patch flush with its mating surface, or a dovetail pin end flush with the drawer's side.
2) in chopping, to give a visual reference to the plane of the surface being formed by the chopping cut, as in the end of a mortise, or a dovetail socket. You can tell if the cut is perpendicular to the surface of the wood being worked, by watching the angle formed by the chisel's back and the face of the wood being worked.
Carving chisels, either skewed or straight, usually are bevelled or ground on both sides, to accomodate working with the varying grain direction and irregular surfaces in the work.
Regards,
Ray Pine
Ray,
I have great respect for your work and approaches/attitudes. So please forgive me in advance if this sounds in anyway disrespectful:
I hear you talking, but have you ever seen yourself do it? See, I'll bet you you don't hold your chisels straight up and down when you straighten a mortise end. I'm fairly sure that the physics don't work like you say. If you hold a chisel straight up and down and pound down, every asymmetrically ground chisel will under cut (in the situation you describe). The chip forces the chisel in. I'll bet you compensate by pulling the tool back a little, with each subsequent blow.
One thing I learned taking photos for magazine articles or giving demonstrations, is that my perception of what I'm doing doesn't match reality. Sawing is a good example.
I think the big advantage of flat backs is sharpening, not usage.
You know, Moxon talked about this 300 years ago. I think he got some of the whys mixed up, but clearly accurately observed craftmen pulling their chisel handles over the line. He also observed guys pushing chisels with their shoulders as I do. And if you think about both the physics and the tools, both make sense.
I might be wrong about how you do it. But my gut tells me this is a bit more complicated than we've presented. Again, I wish we heard from Charlesworth. He strikes me as the kind of chap who would haven given such things some thought.
I wrote an article called "Advanced Chisel Technique" for another magazine. But I really talked about slaving, not this stuff. So just a note to the fine people at FWW- I don't have plans to publish an article on this subject in the near future. Obviously there's interest in it. I think we'd all appreciate a good old fashioned FWW technique article. IMHO, a lot readers would consider this putting the "fine" back into FWW. So I hope you can pick up the ball. I'd even be willng to help for free with source materials, tools, and whatever else is needed. The article should include this subject (under cutting), the various grips, handle designs and how they work, specialty edge shapes, specialty grinds etc.
Adam
Adam,
Cutting a mortise: when I get to the point (pun) of cutting the ends, I'm not whaling away on the chisel. Depending on the hardness of the wood,I stay about 1/16 to 1/8" away from the scribe lines marking the ends of the mortise when I'm chopping to depth; this is so I don't bruise the ends of the mortise as I lever the waste out. I bet you do this too. Then when I'm at the depth I want to be, one or two paring cuts, either light taps (not "pounding") with the mallet, or pushing straight down with arm and shoulder pressure, cleans up the ends. The resistance exerted on the bevel side of the chisel is negligible, with a paring cut. I'll agree that this is a dynamic operation, it requires that you watch what is happening as you make the cut, and if needed, make adjustments in the force you are applying to the chisel as it does its work. But what frame of reference do you have except the angle described by the flat back of the chisel, and the surface of the wood?
It is an elementary practice in cutting recesses of any kind, to make the first vertical cuts "away from the line", then come back and pare to the scribe mark when the bulk of the waste is removed. Anyone who has cut the mortise for a butt hinge by chopping vertically right on the lines then wasting away the inside sees this when the hinge slops around in the recess. If he is awake, he'll realise that the chisel did just as you insist that it always will--the force exerted on the bevel moved the flat side over a bit as the chisel was driven downward. A little thought will reveal that if there is less wood to push against the bevel, it will have less effect on the chisel's direction. If there is just a thin shaving being removed on the bevel side, it won't have a measurable effect. You can make a vertical cut by pushing straight down (if you can push straight!).
Regards,
Ray
Ray -- good way to explain the dynamics of using a chisel. Nicely said.
"Ray -- good way to explain the dynamics of using a chisel. Nicely said."Ditto! I recognize this discussion has been a little afield of the original question, but I think its been helpful. Thanks.Adam
Edited 12/20/2006 6:03 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Ken
Did You by Japanese Chisels?
Hilmar
Ken Wanted to know if it is normal for the chisel back ( not the cutting edge ) to be bend. Then I mentioned Japanese chisel since there back is hollow and it has the effect what he said ,<<< The first task is to polish and hone the backs. Being an amateur,.While doing so I noticed that the waterstone was abrading only the tip and the point of contact with the edge of the stone. Thinking that this was my amateur technique I persisted, and eventually got a flat polished surface.. Only then did I think to check the chisel for straightness of the back. All of the chisels have a bow from near the handle to the tip, 1MM for the shorter chisels and 1.5 - 2 MM for the longer. Is this normal? The result is that the now polished 2 inches of the flat back is slightly out of alignment with the 'line' of the chisel.>>>Hilmar
Edited 12/14/2006 9:54 am ET by h12721
Hilmar-
Thank you for staying with the thread. A Japanese chisel has an intentional hollow on the back, but the sides around the hollow form a contiuous surface with the tip. You can hone the back dead flat and polish it.
Flattening the back and polishing it are key to getting a sharp edge with each tune-up.
My problem is the bow that results in the chisel results in a two inch polished, flat, surface that is out of alignment with theremaining line of the chisel.
Tahnks for your advise.
Ken
Ken,
Flattening the backs of your chisels is not difficult. You can use sandpaper on glass (the Scary Sharp method). You can go the the Lee Valley site, and buy Veritas Honing Compound, which you sprinkle on glass and rub the chisel backs on. Go to http://www.leevalley.com
I have both. Sandpaper works well too.
It takes time to do it. But look on the bright side. It takes less time to do that than to flatten the bottom of a plane (because the plane is bigger). Just grind a little and take a look. Then grind some more, and take a look. You will see the back flattening more and more until you see the same even set of scratches across the part you flattened. I don't believe you need to flatten more than about an inch, although I do more than that.
If I can give you any more specific info, let me know.
Enjoy,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Flattening the back is the objective and I thank you for staying with my question. I have read enough to use either the scary sharp method or waterstones. My concern is with whether it is reasonable to expect that a chisel will be straight or whether the bow is normal. I do understand that polishing the back will slightly reduce the continuity of line, but when there is a bow in the back it is exagerated.
Any thoughts?Ken
whether it is reasonable to expect that a chisel will be straight or whether the bow is normal.
In my opinion it is reasonable to expect that a chisel back will be straight within the range of of hundreths or thousands of an inch over its length. [Every chisel back I've ever rubbed on a diamond plate over it's length has had high and low spots and some can be a lot of work to remove even starting at 220 grit, but a pronounced bow? Nope) I think a bow measured in milimeters is not cool. What brand of chisels are we talking about here?
Is that a straight enough answer?
Edited 12/14/2006 2:04 pm ET by Samson
Yes, and thank you. I'll write to the supplier about the problem before defaming them on this forum.
Ken
I can't believe this thread was hijacked so quickly and your question has gone basically unanswered. The chisel backs should ideally be dead flat. The purpose for flattening the back near the cutting edge is to make as nearly a perfect intersection with the bevel as possible in the same plane as the back. Your problem sounds more like trying to correct a badly made tool. Send them back. Good chisels are flat.
" . . . and your question has gone basically unanswered."
Perhaps you ought to actually read the thread. Message 16, for example.
Your sarcasm aside, the question was: "Is this normal? The result is that the now polished 2 inches of the flat back is slightly out of alignment with the 'line' of the chisel."
"I can't believe this thread was hijacked so quickly and your question has gone basically unanswered."I'm sorry you feel that way. Looks like the OP may share your sentiments, which if true is unfortunate. Also, we all offer our free advice for the benefit of the OP and for all. That's how it works.That said, my experience tells me what you have said is not completely true. A sharp edge needs an intersection of two surfaces, but those surfaces don't need to be planar nor does one of them have to be "in line" with the chisel. The tangency must be acute and held to a low angle.If you reread my posts you will find that I can make a case for the fact that:
a) there's no particular value to a straight chisel back beyond sharpening and is questionable whether its flatness is helpful or not for that.
b) When a back is straight all the way to the handle, that surface is definitely not "in line" with the center of effort of the chisel. Pounded into any piece of wood, that edge seeks equal pressure on either side. Chisels are wedges. So my answer (maybe I didn't make it clear) was yes its normal for older chisels to have non-flat backs and that an out of flat back may not effect a chisel's use the way some believe it does. There are exceptions and Ray offered one. Adam
I feel--up to now--that I was pretty smart staying out of this discussion...
Let it be said I am not of the measurably flat back society. My vintage Butcher firmers came in such a state that would give society members nightmares.
Oh, the bevels were pretty well shaped, so at least the last owner knew how to obtain a sharp edge. The patina extended down the bevels, so the last owner was some time ago and they sat unused.
But the backs...well, probably in the same state as how they were made. The last maybe 1/4" [to be generous] had evidence of taking a burr off over time. But the backs are not as flat as I have been paid to make chisel backs for other people on other forums. Guess these unkown people were simply ignorant and didn't know better.
Now, my--brace yourselves--Sorby paring chisels I purchased as replacements for some stolen years ago are pretty flat. Heavy grind marks on them. I did, over the course of the last 5 years remove those marks near the edge through the process of daily sharpening. These chisels flex, something I appreciate in a long paring chisel. So regardless of how flat they are at rest, it really doesn't matter in use.
I too use chisels bevel down at times. It's simply another technique which for me has uses. For instance, I will often hog off wood where I intend to use my good old Preston chamfer plane. For lamb's tongue chamfer termination. And for something as mundane as removing glue. I suspect I use a chisel bevel down for other purposes too, but it's not something I think about.
And for me, that's the point to all this. Flat backs is a beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing. As is how to use a chisel. None of it really matters to me. What does, is using a tool to affect the wood or metal I am shaping to achieve what is my goal for that piece.
Take care, Mike
That was diplomatically said, Mike (and that's not a compliment). I'm a flat chisel back person and have painstakingly flattened all of my old tools- spending hours on some. Now, 10 years later, I wonder if I wasn't duped. If you can use your butchers without flat backs isn't that the key here? I mean, who started the flat back, flat plane sole- thing anyway? The flat earth society? Flat heads?As I said in my first post, I think our OP is going to flatten his or return them for flatter tools. That's what I did. He's asking if this is a "normal" occurance. I'm asking "does it matter?" So what do you say, Mike? What about your framing chisels? Do they have/need flat backs? Are we wasting our time flattening our chisel backs? Adam
P.S. I think plane soles are really different- I just threw that in there for fun.PPS full disclosure- I tried this for months (working with chisels whose backs were merely "deburred".) I found these chisels fine to work with. Now I was using 18th c sharpening stuff which I had some troubles with. So teh quality of my edges was less than I was accustomed to, but that probably had more to do with the stones than the geometry of the edges.
Oh gee, it's possible my little feelers are hurt because I neither got railing condemnation nor heaps o' praise <g>.
As long as I will be getting burned at the stake [something the registrar at Bible college wanted to do with me] let me add that for most of my planes I could care less if those soles are flat either. Flat as I define them that is.
I do believe for my smoother and jointing planes, flat "enough" is my goal. Well, the smoother is pretty darn flat within the limitations of my ability to do so.
I think flat backs and flat soles are elusive and ill defined. What exactly is the reference standard one goes for? My only goal with a jointing plane is to create two surfaces which will mate well. For the smoother, one of the--if not the--lest used planes, my goal is to simply take a thin [whatever that means] consistent shaving. I don't use absolute reference surfaces to ensure that.
For all my other planes, my desire is to waste as much wood as possible as fast as possible. In fact, I'm in the process of selling off the remainder of my metal bench planes. I have or am replacing them with wooden planes. Of the 5 non-smoothers I have, I first made a 16" jack usable and the sole flat enough to joint the bottom of the 28" jointer, which in turn took a pass of the jack once more, and it tool another couple passes on the jointer. Flat enough. They will be used on the remaining 3.
As for the irons? Those wonderful laminated tapered irons? Well, bevels were moderately reshaped, cleaned and the backs...I sorta polished the first 1/4" or so, used an ever so slight back bevel and over time--read that use--they will get flatter at the back's edge, but no more than that.
I have yet to ever flatten the entire back of a chisel for myself. Guess I don't know any better. Don't get me started on bevel shapes as I will be gored as I am burnt at the stake for that. Well, at least perhaps for the rounded bevel on my mortise chisels. I have never seen a chisel older than 50 years where it appears any attempt was made to ensure the entire back was flattened. Oh, some had original grind marks. Most of the really old ones still have hammer forging marks. The most amount of polished surface I have seen on dozens and dozens of pre-1900 chisels was about 1". Most are less than 1/2".
I obviously think that all that is necessary is the intersection of those two surfaces need to be clean and polished good enough for the task at hand. But even "how good is good" to me is a moving target someone would love to take a potshot at. I keep a 2k grit Shapton stone on my bench and that's about as high as I take edges while working. Work a little, a couple swipes on the stone and back to work. That applies to everything except my smoothers.
I have had many different smoothers over time. My all time favorite was a Preston infill I sold when I started making saws. I just received a C&W 2" smoother Friday [meep meep]. It is a beautiful, extremely well made smoother. This will get honed during use with a higher grit stone.
I am convinced most people who do this madness on a fairly consistent basis change what is acceptable, desirable and obtainable to produce the work they do. It's a liberating thing to discover what is beneficial to good practices and work, and what is not for them.
How's that for being PC <g>.
Take care, Mike
Mike, Adam, et. al.,
Very interesting thread and I'll throw out another twist to it, regarding the flat sole and flat back society. My take on it is we've become (said tongue in cheek) of woodworkers striving to get a .001" shaving more than striving for a certain result on the piece being worked.
What I find more humorous than anything regarding the .001" is how that .001" is being measured. Plastic calipers, etc., maybe a cheap mic that has never been calibrated. Plus or minus tolerances so wide that you could throw a large size tomcat through!
What has had the most profound effect in my journey? Paying less attention to what others say and more attention to what I do! Find out what works and further refine those skills. Yeah, I bought into flattening chisel backs and working the soles of my planes on a granite plate to 800 grit SC paper. It did help me feel as if I was becoming better at my hobby even if what I built didn't look it.
Instead of wasting an excessive length of time on flattening your chisel backs or plane sole, build a shooting board or learn to secure your work to your bench properly to take advantage of your tools. Learn the tools you use (the best way to learn them is to use them--then you'll know if you need to "tweak" now and then).
Anyhow Mike & Adam, I truly appreciate your posts and perspectives and have learned more than a bit from them!
T.Z.
Coo! Passionate!!
Lataxe the gobsmacked.
Great post. I agree wholeheartedly with all you've said.
Bravo! Adam and Mike!
I flattened a Sargent Smoother once, it really didn't need too much, but I did it anyway. It didn't improve it noticeably. I got a Jack plane that I bought from Patrick Leach a real beauty, a turn of the century (1900) era No. 5. It wouldn't cut! I checked it for flatness and it was a bit off. But then I checked the iron and the chipbreaker had been put so close to the edge that it wouldn't cut! I backed it off a 1/16th and without even sharpening it further, it worked beautifully.
Like Mike, I never have lapped the back of a chisel, except for a lick on the stone to take off wire edge. All of my antique chisels show similar treatment.
I think that if reasonably flat is good , then incredibly flat must be gooder and surface plate flat must be goodest! Some folks can't have too much of a good thing!
Adam, thanks for your reasoning for your bevel down discussion, well thought out as ever. There are times when I do pare the way you describe. And I have noticed that even using a reference surface against the chisel back the cut deepening as you describe. Like using a woodcarving chisel for a straight cut, paring bevel down is a skill I'll need to practice.
Interesting discussion. To the OP sorry for my part in dragging us away from your curved chisels. Call your dealer and trade them in, they should at least be reasonably flat.
Best Regards,
David Carroll
Can't resist another comment on this one...:-)
Re-reading all the posts, which contain a lot of interesting points buried in the shavings, is it reasonable to conclude that?:
1) You can successfully use any kind of chisel, even if it does not have a flat back, if you are skilled and experienced in chiselling wood.
2) Flattening the backs will not detract from the chisel's performance and in fact provides it with a "self-jigging" action that can be useful in many circumstances (eg it helps in chiselling a flat area or chopping flat end-walls in mortises).
Therefore , a flat-back chisel is not critical (for experts) but still better than a bent-back chisel, given a choice.
So, if you want flat backs, either:
a) insist your new ones have reasonably flat backs to begin with and swap any bent ones for flat ones (or ones that can be made flat in short order);
b) accept some dips and bumps (especially in vintage chisels) if you are prepared to take the time to grind/hone them until flat (for at least some of their length).
Of course, there is also:
c) be a dogged old dog and learn how to use chisels which, whlst holding amazing edges, are shaped like corkscrews.
I confess to being an a)-type woodworker myself; but then I'm a handtool newbie and need that self-jigging effect quite a lot just now.
Lataxe
A few additional thoughts to my post of Sunday evening: I recall remembering an article by Mike Dunbar (or may Mario Rodriquez). The point of the article (and this may have been in one of FWW book compilations on hand tools) was listing ost used tools. Dunbar stated he wouldn't be without his #3 sweep x 1" wide (or so) gouge. Claims it is just the ticket for paring off dowels, etc., flush to the surface. Now by its nature, a gouge is not flat on its back!
The other point was my commentary on Adam's comments about paring the inside of a mortice: I have done exactly what he said countless times but never connected the dots to realize it could be a function of the chisel itself. I further recalled paring off dowels and also digging the surface and/or having the chisel follow the grain causing the digging. I have a Sorby 3/8" paring chisel similar to the style Mike uses and agree that the flex of the long chisel negates anything to be gained by flattening.
I have a very large accumulation of tools, but only a small number of them are users. The reason for this is that I get far better results from the old Shure-kut (appears to be a bevel edge Witherby) that I know like the back of my hand, that has so many "waves" on its back that you'd swear you were at the ocean versus my brand new AI, or Hirsch chisels that are very, very flat, simply because I have learned how the old one works. If I take the time with the AI or whatever, I'm sure I'll get equal results, but what is the point? What difference does it make to you if your motorcycle has 150 HP if you can't get the rubber to meet the road?
I'd bet that guys like Mike or Adam and countless more of you would get equal results from an old Sears plastic handled chisel or a new L-N fancy chisel, provided each was sharp.
My two cents and it's over and out folks!
T.Z.
The original poster --rivkrl -- said he was an amateur and wanted to know if the chisels were "normal", that's all, because he was daunted by having to work the backs so much. I took this to be a real-world issue for someone who wasn't sure what he should be working with since the backs seemed to be at least one mm out of alignment/square/coplanar or whatever. I agree with your points of view for the most part, although my Two Cherries, Marples and a complete set of bench chisels that were my grandfather's (probably 150+ years old) all have flat backs. Just today I used a bench chisel flat on its back, like a corner plane, to square up a corner made by a router which is only one of a probable infinite number of ways possible to make use of a flat back. But, hey!, I don't have a need to be right or precise about this dumb topic -- there's too much important stuff out there to think about and I guess a person can use a chisel any way he wants to. Sorry if I caused a problem trying to help out a guy who had his chisels stolen and wanted a decent replacement. Nuff said.
I suspect you have simply discovered the fact that most chisels (and plane irons, in my experience) aren't really that well ground before they are sent into the marketplace. The most succinct explanation of this I've found is on Lee Valley's website:
"A chisel is not complex. In today's world, it should not be difficult to use a suitable alloy, properly forge, harden, and grind it, and put a handle on straight. Nonetheless, it seems to be more than most current manufacturers can achieve. ....some (manufacturers) seem to feel that getting four of the five basics right is a good average..."
I always flatten and polish my irons using waterstones and a honing compound on a piece of flat MDF. I don't really know if the mirror finish I get makes the chisels cut better, but it makes me smile when I use them.
Regards,
Ron
Ken,
While I wouldn't be happy to get new chisels out of flat by much, I don't think it's the end of the World. If the steel is good and they hold a decent edge and if the price was right, they may be worth keeping. As others have pointed out, you don't have to work the backs flat all in one setting. You just need them flat enough to get a sharp edge and give some support while paring. Flatten them over time if you keep them.
You can even try using them upside down and bearing on the bevel during use. Just keep in mind there's a reason slicks and some paring chisels had off-set handles. It's the same reason in-cannel gouges were used for coping and a lot of other traditional chisel techniques evolved.
One of my most treasured chisels during a life-time of cabinet making and architectural wood work is my 1 1/2" paring chisel with an off-set handle. It's an old one and I've had it so long I didn't even pay attention to the maker's mark when I ground a bunch of rust off it. It is made of good steel though.
Here's that chisel:
View Image
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled