There are several types of chisels and gouges out there — and I get a bit confused with the definitions. As far as I an tell(excluding Japanese tools about which I know nothing), there are the following major categories:
Paring chisels
morticing chisels
firmer chisels
gouges
firmer gouges
framer’s chisels
framer’s slicks
framer’s gouges
It that all there is?
How does a paring chisel differ from a firmer chisel? Do all “framer’s chisels and gouges have sockets? Are they all of the larger, heavier size?
What are the actual working definitions of these tools?
Replies
Joe,
Paring chisels --blades 8-10" long, fairly thin, usually bevelled on their sides. May be socket or tang handled
morticing chisels-- blades are thicker than they are wide. No bevellinmg on sides of the blade, but blades may be slightly tapered on the sides.
firmer chisels-- heavier blades than paring chisels. Blades are usually 8-10" long, not bevelled on their sides. These were originally called "former" chisels. Usually socket handled.
gouges- have some degree of curve along their cutting edge. Carving gouges are usually tang handled.
firmer gouges-- stouter than carving gouges, may be in-cannel or out cannel, referring to the placement of the bevel on the edge.
framer's chisels--heavy blade, large size appropriate for timber framing. Usually socket handled.
framer's slicks-- slicks are large, 3" wide or larger chisels with long handles. Used mostly for paring, by arm or shoulder pressure, rather than by being struck with a mallet.
framer's gouges-- as above, for framing work, coping large moldings, or forming decorative elements.
It that all there is?
Butt chisels--short, fairly stout blades, usually bevelled on their sides, socket or tang handles. Used for general bench work, like cutting recesses for butt hinges.
Regards,
Ray Pine
....and then there are the cranks, chisels and old!
Lataxe, an eccentric (variety 34d old crank, mostly defunct now).
PS ....and 1094 varieties of carving chisels, not to mention 3256 varieties of lathe chisels. Also, my dentist has one or two nasty-looking things that carve off bits of tooth. Owww!
Lataxe,
I don't have any cranked chisels. Mine are all kickstart.
Ray
Ray,
"I don't have any cranked chisels. Mine are all kickstart".
I bet they are also plastered with lots of chrome bits and have only one cylinder of 497 cubic inches. Do you wear a cutoff denim jacket when you use 'em? Send pictures of yourself astride one, also with a semi-clad [censored by the Taunton Anti-silly police].
You mentioned the bark-spud - still alive and debarking in the woods of Cumbria, I am happy to report. Also, polelathe lovers tend to use a large, near-flat gouge of some 2-3 inches wide, having no obvious cannel either way, to do most of their turning. I am told that these things are lethal if used with the more rapidly spinning electric lathe, however.
Those texts you mention - I will be having a look for them. I presume they're out of print?
Lataxe
PS Derek, thanks for the link to the chisel-type notes.
Lataxe,
Mercer's book is still available, I believe.. I got my copy at the Mercer Museum in Pennsylvania. Saloman's may well be available, tho I've had mine for several yrs now. Hummel is out of print, it is from the mid 70's, but it's from Winterthur, so the museum store may have a line on them.
For your amusement, I'll try to attach a pic of me on my steed. Two cyls, 1200cc's, 1938 vintage.
Cheers,
Ray
Lataxe,
Salamans' Woodworking Tools Dictionary: http://www.astragalpress.com/dictionary_woodworking_tools.htm
Mercer: http://www.astragalpress.com/ancient_carpenters_tools.htm
Hummel: Amazon-us lists one copy from one of their affiliated book dealers, but they want about $165 for it; you might have better luck at a better price at one of the used booksellers in the UK.....Beste Wünschen auf ein glückliches und wohlbehaltenes Neues Jahr!
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Interesting, Ray. Thanks. AI'd be grateful if I might ijmpose on you for a couple more questions:
a) What is in-cannel or out cannel, in other words, which is which and why are they done differently;
b) I have a large socket tool of framing size, blade probably 3" wide or so, but it has some curve to it -- not a tubular secton like gouges usually are, but more of a slight scoup shape. Any idea what that would be?
I am building new tool cabinets and some old items are coming to light for the forst time in years. This thing, whatever it is, is one of them.
Joe,
Ray did not mention the most popular chisel..the Bench chisel(aka bevel chisel) which has beveled sides that helps with dovetails and, unlike paring chisels, can be banged with a mallet.
Joe,
If you can access it, here is a FWW article by Mike Dubar in which he discusses the many uses for a "shallow gouge" such as you describe:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/ToolGuide/ToolGuidePDF.aspx?id=2734
Lataxe
"b) I have a large socket tool of framing size, blade probably 3" wide or so, but it has some curve to it -- not a tubular secton like gouges usually are, but more of a slight scoup shape. Any idea what that would be?"That would be a Slick.
The back is not flat because it was used to shape a surface, allowing you to pare without the corners digging in. Similar effect to the slight curve sharpened into smoothing planes for finishing the surface of a board. A slick has the ability to remove a heavy or very fine shaving as needed on a flat or convex surface. Used by Timber Framers and even more by Shipbuilders.
Very interesting. Thanks to both of you, and I'll follow the link
Joe,
a) The "cannel" of a gouge is its bevel. Normally, gouges are out-cannel, that is the bevel is on the convex side of the curve, for carving a depression. In-cannel gouges are bevelled on their inner (concave) side, allowing for chopping straight down to form a circular (or semi circular) depression, as for coping an inside corner joint on a piece of quarte-round molding, or starting a hole for an old-fashioned pod or nose auger to follow.
b) sounds like a slick, although the ones I've seen are flat, not curved. Could've been purpose made, or modified, for some special use. What's the handle look like?
Ray
Handle looks like a piece of ash 8 or 10 inches long -- straight, and rounded on the end. Does not look like it is intended to be struck, if memory serves (it is some distance away from the house on a cold and sleety night). I'll try to post a picture later in the week when I get daughter to use her digital camera. I am also uncertain about how to sharpen it.
BTW, given the strength of framer's chisels, and assuming good steel and the same width, why would one want anything else for morticing? Seems they would be more efficient. Am I missing something?
Joe,
The typical slick's handle swells at the end to a rather flat "knob" that the user can nestle into the hollow of the shoulder to press against. Rather like the end of a hand brace. But I've seen ones with straight handles not unlike a broomstick, just larger diameter. From your description, yours sounds slickish, for sure. There is also a tool called a "bark spud" for peeling the bark off trees, for use in some early crafts, chair seating, basket making, berry box making. Large pieces of tree bark were even used as an early. easy, roofing material.
A framer's mortising chisel would be for 1" or larger mortises. Typical cabinetmaker's mortising chisels are 1/8"- 1/2" usually. A framer's "firmer" will likely be too stout to enter a normal furniture mortise for paring the sides, but if you have one that lends itself to your usage, the chisel police will not come knocking if you use it for jobs other than framing. ;-)
By the way, Saloman's "Dictionary of Tools", is a great resource. Also Mercer's "Ancient Carpenter's Tools", and Hummel's "With Hammer in Hand".
Regards,
Ray
Ray,
Chisels, as tools, may be sharp, but as a topic, they are dull. Now chiselers, as a topic, are fascinating. They are born sharp, whereas chisels are born dull. In painting, there have been chiselers who make fakes and sold them as real. That is unconscionable. But I have a relative in Italy who has morphed it into a fun, legal and profitable profession. With each of his paintings, he gives you a "certificate of un-authenticity". You can find his website at
http://www.fakemaster.it
Note that there is an "it" at the end of that address, not a "com".
I may kid about other things, but this guy is really a relative, and he is a phenomenal painter. I wish he'd paint in his own style, but he really enjoys painting in everyone else's. To me, he is to the painting world, as Rich Little is to impersonators -- really good and really fun.I was thinking of imitating what my relative does, but in woodwork, and make copies of pieces by the great woodworkers (such as Sam Maloof, Jack Thomasville, Bill Ikea, yourself, and others). But if I charge $1 per hour for my time, each piece would cost more than the originals, and the quality wouldn't be nearly as good. So I have given up on that idea until I increase my skill levels. :-)I thought a lot about my relative during the recent long thread on the importance of not copying the furniture or styles of other woodworkers. But that thread gave me too many migranes. I was confused by the thought of making a copy of one of your copies of a piece of Chippendale furniture, especially after you pointed out that even Thomas. C. copied many of his design ideas from the Greeks and Chinese. I just couldn't figure out who to write letters to. So I went back to my design table and tried to design something completely new. I succeeded in making a few drawings that I thought were almost completely new, but my wife said the stuff looked ugly and impractical. She likes me to make modifications of existing stuff which is beautiful and practical, and then give the stuff to the kids. I always include a certificate of unauthenticity.Enjoy.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel
What a wonderful post. Keep them coming.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Mel,
Sorry you find chisel discussions dull. I recommend you avoid reading anything about bit braces- you'll probably think they're BORING!!!
On a more serious note, I've always found it interesting that a piece of classical music can be performed over and over, by various artists, with no diminution of enjoyment by the listeners, and (if executed proficiently) with no ill effects to the reputation of the performer. Yet, you take a classical furniture form, (or a painting, or sculpture) and do the same thing, it is regarded, with a sniff of disdain, as a "reproduction", a "copy", and the maker pitied, yea scorned, even, as one who cannot come up with an original idea of his/her own to build. Funny that we don't call a performance of Beethovan a reproduction, or think less of Fritz Reiner, Itzac Perlman or Isaac Stern because they "couldn't" come up with something a little bit more original than a piece of music written a couple hundred-plus years ago. Why is that, do you think?
Ray
Ray,
YOu are right, chisels can be dull, but braces and bits can be boring. I have often pondered the conundrum you described -- why is it that giving a concert in which one plays Mozart pieces perfectly is different than making a Chippendale style chair or a Maloof style chair or painting in the style of Renoir (if only I could). As you know, an entire thread was devoted to this, and it came to no generally accepted conclusions.It seems to me that the depth of the conundrum is enhanced because
new music is being written all the time, whereas I have never seen a piece of furniture that doesn't have "design heritage". When I listen to an oldies station, they are "oldies". When I hear new songs, I recognize immediately that they are different that the songs that came before. Yet when it comes to furniture, I don't believe that I have ever seen a "new" design -- Maloof included. I don't want to argue with anyone on that. They have their ideas. I have mine. Damned if anyone is going to confuse me with facts and information, as so many have tried to do. I believe, as Hilton demonstrated so admirably in "Illustrated Cabinetmaking", that every kind of furniture is made up of sub-assemblies. It is all just permutations and combinations. If you learn to make the sub-assemblies, you have it knocked. To oversimplify, then you just need to add on the frills which give it some pizzazz. I really like Hilton's book. I need to have things demystified for me, and Hilton did a good job in that area.Luckily I enjoy conundrums. The reason why people are so interesting is because logic plays an overrated role in human thinking. As a result, humans do things which are mutually contradictory. Ain't that enjoyable. That's my explanation of the conundrum.Meanwhile, I started a thread under General Discussion about getting excited about woodworking aprons. Please read my post. I am hoping that it generates a thread of over 300 posts. We know that chisels are dull and braces are boring, and now we learn that aprons are involved in cover-ups.Enjoy.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
My problem is that Maloof's chairs (as an example of the type) strike me the same way that John Cage's (as an example) music does. Novelty for its own sake, very little in the way of beauty as I define it. Others opinions will differ, and to each his own.
Ray
Ray,
Your take on Maloof chairs is a tad harsher than mine, but in the same direction. I think they are good looking and very nicely done. But it doesn't fire me up with enthusiasm. It just doesn't strike me as worth the adulation that it stirs up in many woodworkers. Up until I received your message, I thought I was the only one with this opinion. Glad to know that there are at least two. I don't usually make statements like that on Knots, where my main interest is to learn, not to give people a reason to get themselves riled up. Mom always said that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Y'all have fun,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hey joe, wher ya goin with that chisel in yer hand...
seems someone wrote a song with a title similar to that
Not a bad list, at fist go
well, with the obvious exception of carving chisels, a complete spectrum in itself, you ommitted
cranked neck chisels and gouges as utilized by patternmakers and carvers
swan neck mortice chisels utilized in installing full mortice locksets in days gone by.
corner chisels, heck even sold today by PC with their hinge installing jigs, and seperately as well
mortice chisels (the square variety) which are equally as likely to be pounded with a mallet as used in a drill press
and then there;s the registered mortice chisels too....
skewed chisels, sold by LV and maybe useful in cleaning up DT's
and some might point to "pocket chisels" with the short blades, but there likely a subset of ordinary chisels.
I'm gonna keep a copy of this thread, cause it identifies the number of drawers a fella might need to make a start at having a comprehensive chisel chest.
Eric in Cowtown
Goin down to dovetail my old lady -- you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Cowtown, eh? As in Ft. Worth? I am over on the east side of Dallas enjoying the ice.
I have a framer's corner chisel, and you are right, it should be mentioned separately
You and Lataxe have both mentioned "Cranked" chisels. WHat are they, and how used?
Also, what are "registered" mortice chisels?
Assume that "skewed" hae angled blades?
Edited 1/15/2007 8:19 am ET by Joe Sullivan
Joe
Try this link
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=toolshop&Category_Code=TB
It will take you to Joel's write up at Tools for Working Wood.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Calgary actually....Flames going up against Detroit in the playoffsyer musical reply was exquisite.Hell Half the folks on this list don't know who mork was or where he was from...The skewed is indeed angled. The "registered" ain't so much that the chisel has papers, but to my pea brain, means that the sides of the chisel is square so it "registers" against the side of the mortice.
The cranked is so that the the handle lies above the plane of the chisel. At least to the best of my knowledge....And if one thing is certain, it is that the more I know about oldtools, the more I know that theres even more I don't know.This past weekend, my 80 yr old uncle and I went through the tool box of my now deceased swedish uncle who had worked in the iron mines in michigan and the mines in Idaho in the the 30's/40's and found tools that neither he nor I could identify the purpose. I did come home with a Stanley #12 carpenters slide rule though. (?1912) in "out of the box" condition.So, while in the sixty's that line "hey joe where ya goin... had significance, to my (dead uncle) Hey joe meant Joe Hill.Spent 4 hrs on the weekend rummaging though tool boxes that reached back well over 100 years and two continents with the fella who nourished the tool bug-seed in me. Exquisite. If yer curious to get a head's up on some of these weirder tools, I betcha if you trot down to the local library and search for Salamans Dictionary of Tools, if they don't have it on the shelves, they can likely get it for you through interlibrary loan. It's fun reading, no kidding, it is rather obscure, but it is so useful. Sometimes even in this day and age, I say to myself that "I've seen the solution to that problem" in that book. Stuff no Freudian nor Black and Deckerian has even conjured up. Actually, realitively easy bed-time reading.Eric
in Calgary
Eric:
Sounds like good reading.
I, too have been rummaging around old family sheds and tool boxes, which is part of my reason for asking questions about hand tools. I originally learned on hand tools as a boy, but the machine age was coming on strong and I forgot even the limited skills Ihad. they are coming back, thugh, and I like working with the tools and techniques of the departed men I loved, especially when it is the VERY tools.
So you live in the cowtown of the north, eh. Used to know a guy up there who lived across the river from the Bow and spent a lot of time bragging about trout...
Joe
Ijust dunno how you can live across the river from the Bow.....but it is one of N Am's good trout fly fishing rivers. I am perpetually suprised at how many stores make a good trade with fishing excursions. I live about a 5 minute walk from it, and the last time I took an afternoon off to go fishin, I got in so much doo-doo with SWMBO..Heck, I even flogged my Van Hoffe reel....Eric
Right...
He lives across the ROAD from the Bow.
J
Joe....I'll quote you from his message...."Used to know a guy up there who lived across the river from the
Bow and spent a lot of time bragging about trout..."but OK, maybe he was on the left bank.....regards (in fun) Eric
eric,
According to Salaman's dictionary of tools, "registered " refers to the design of the handles of certain heavy (shipwrights) firmer chisels, which have ferrules that are more like caps, with a hole in the end for the tang of the chisel to pierce, and the bolster of the chisel to bear against, rather than the endgrain of the handle, as it would with a typical ring-shaped ferrule. Also, an iron ferrule at the struck end of the handle. He cites the catalogs of a couple Sheffield mfrs as the source of this info.
Salaman is an interesting read, you're right. I plow thrrough it from a to z every once in a while, just for fun. I'm easily entertained, I guess.
Ray
How does a paring chisel differ from a firmer chisel? Do all "framer's chisels and gouges have sockets? Are they all of the larger, heavier size?
Joe,
I think this is good and fairly complicated question. I always assumed chisels were originally made for fairly specific jobs. Mortise chisels were for mortising, paring chisels for paring etc. Your post suggests you have the same idea. But you observantly point out that there are socket firmers, tanged firmers, but also long firmers and short firmers. Do all of these chisels have different purposes and if so, what are they? I don't know the answer.
Smith's Key is a helpful resource for learning about early tools. Socketed firmers and tanged firmers are included in the price list, but curiously they aren't available in the same size ranges. The socketed chisels are not available in the smaller sizes and not avilable in as many sizes. As you ponder chisels, I think its a good idea to keep their size in mind as an important indicator of their use.
To complicate matters, the Seaton chest contains both firmers and paring chisels. Yet they are virtually indistinguishable. In some cases it appears the differentiation between chisels may be their usage. I could imagine sharpening firmers and parers differently.
So size and use both come into play when differentiating between chisels. While socket firmers could have been used by early furniture makers to make mortises, they probably weren't (for some reason) as they weren't available in the sizes proper joiners' mortise chisels were.
One thing I've learned is that modern chisel manufacturers (with a few notable exceptions) name their chisels things that don't match their designs. They also choose to make chisels in unfortunate sizes (or lack thereof) or patterns/designs. I'm also not a big fan of many modern chisel handles, as they don't support the techniques I use. So be sure not to take Garret Wade's word for it. Don't assume their paring chisel (or whatever) will pare well or that their design even corresponds to traditional designs of that tool.
Adam
P.S. In an unplugged shop, I rely very heavily on chisels. In my shop, they define and create features- tasks I suspect are done by other tools in powered up shops. So like saws, the more I work by hand, the more I prefer the more aggressive designs of the past.
Edited 4/11/2007 12:28 pm ET by AdamCherubini
You sure put your finger on the problem. I have quite a few chisels, and the more I look at them and at others for sale or just hanging on other guys' walls, the more confusing it is. There are supposed categories of chisels, but lots of them just don't fit.
For example how about a set made about 20 years ago with a shallow bevel and a factory angle of 25d, with a +- 5 inch to 6 inch blade, a tang, 5 inch to 6 inch handles, and rings at the top. Are they heavy paring chisels, in which case why the rings? Are they firmers, in which case, why the angles?
And then you have the problem that old socket chisels with long blades tend to be classed by vendors as "framing" or millwright's chisels, even when they are clearly too light. I suppose in reality they are sash chisels, if it matters.
I guess, Adam, it is a matter of knowing what blades and qualities you need for the job, and ignoring the designations. But life would be easier if the definitions really meant somethng.
BTW, here is a little sidebar for you -- I am using all hand tools to build a nice new base for my bandsaw...
Joe
I am using all hand tools to build a nice new base for my bandsawThat's just wrong! Maybe I should make a traditional tool chest out of plywood and drywall screws!I guess...it is a matter of knowing what blades and qualities you need for the job. I hope FWW's editors are paying attention. Sometimes I think WW magazines think every subject has been covered in exhaustive detail. Not so. When this subject first came up, I went back and read as many FWW articles as I could find on the subject. There were many good articles, but none on this specific subject. I hope they take this into consideration.Adam
Edited 4/11/2007 5:57 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Adam, I'll bet it would be a very finely crafted plywood box at that, with the drywall screws covered with plugs and the whole sanded smooth. A joy to behold.
As to FWW and the chisel questions, I too searched, and I found a certain amount of information, but not enough. There are some very good basic articles like Smalser's fro last year, but still lots of questions are not addressed. That was true of chisels themselves, and also of sharpening them as we discussed on another thread. People like to talk about brand names, types of steel, and sharpening methods. However, lots of the nitty gritty gets shorted.
I am presently bugging Ernie Conover in the experts section about steel treatment - another critical issue for users of older tools. He wrote a very fine piece over there on the nuts and bolts of hardening and drawing. I am asking coms follow-on questions
I really care about this stuff, as you learned in the saws threads. This is not casual stuff if you want to really know what you are doing and cannot go be an apprentice somewhere.
One recurring thought, Adam, that was reinforced by your comments on saw sharpening, is that as real tradesmen and their skills have declined, we collectively (not FWW in particular) have begun to shift the balance of the emphasis to the tools (and the tool brands) and away from the craft skills that guide them. I have seen the same thing in other areas like horses and fly fishing. If you have good equipment, and good skills you can do what you need, but all too many peoiple who lack good skills keep buying superb to extravigant equipment to try for better results. It does not work in those pursuits, and it does not work in woodworking either.
Although my own craft skills would not impress you or anyone else on this forum, I did grow up amongst craftsmen. While their toolchests were complete, they had far fewer tools than many hobbyists today, and yet they accomplished excellent work. Smalser makes that same point speaking about boatbuilders n his 2006 chisel article. The old boys knew what they needed, and how to use and maintain what they had.
Just food for thought.
Has anyone seen the The Prestige? Without ruining any details there is this one part ehere someone chops some other guys finger off with a chisel and as soon as he set that chisel against this poor guys finger I couldn't help but shout out, "THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT'S USED FOR!!!!!" Lol no one else in my family saw the prevelance.
-Ryan C.
But was the chisel scary sharp?
Joe
"We collectively (not FWW in particular) have begun to shift the balance of the emphasis to the tools .....and away from the .... skills"I was just saying that the market changed from Master Cabinetmakers making furniture for the aristocracy to unskilled laborers in furniture factories making furniture for the masses. I think tools got dumbed down because the market disappeared.In terms of chisels, I think there are fewer varieties available now than they were in years past(though that's changing). I also think manufacturers don't match the right handle to the right pattern because they have no idea how to use the tools they make. Moreover, our chisel reviews of late don't even review the features that matter most. They review edge holding, then get into some dubious metalurgical pseudo-science. Lastly, woodworkers themselves simply aren't using these tools to their full potential. I suspect they would do more with them if they were more aware of what a chisel can do. I watched one of the cabinetmakers in Williamsburg do a persian arched topped raised panel in about 5 minutes with a 1" firmer chisel. When I say stuff like this, folks call me a Luddite and get very indignant, but you really had to see it. I found it beautiful to watch. Just a simple chisel, easy smooth strokes, and in the wink of an eye this fabulously complex shape was done. No big deal. We can all work like that. Chisels can do more than pare and chop dovetails.Adam
That would be beautiful to see. Now, it appears likely that you are indeed a luddite, but I wouldn't use that comment as evidence. I agree completely.
Here is a twist for you, though. Is it possible that tools today are being dumbed UP for the affluent society? Fabulously expensive (genuinely beautifully made) tools sold to people with limited skills. Sold, in fact like perfume and makeup -- as a form of hope? The better tool will make the difference?
Joe
Is it possible that tools today are being dumbed UP for the affluent society? Fabulously expensive (genuinely beautifully made) tools sold to people with limited skills.
If I were going to live on a desert island and could only take the barest minimum tools, it would number a few planes and a couple of chisels. And I'd made do.
In my day job I do a fair amount of neuropsychological testing. I have done this for 30 years. I do not spend much money buying tests. I tend to have a few favourites for the specific tasks, ones that I know intimately, and use these without thinking that there are better tests available. There are (better tests) but my main tool is my brain, not the test, per se.
Similarly, I cannot imagine even the best cabinetmakers routinely buying and using tools such as Anderson or Marcou planes. I do imagine that they will only use what works for them.
On the other hand, I buy and use whatever handtools take my fancy (within my financial means) since I am not interested in making a profit and more involved in having fun. I love to use, experience and work with many handtools. I own far more than are needed or were ever owned by the cabinetmakers of Yesteryear. (No doubt they owned more books on psychology and psychiatry than I do).
I find Adam's comments about chisels with power interesting because, no doubt, this reflects the difference between those used by the Gentleman cabinetmaker and the Professional. I enjoy delicate work with chisels - paring dovetails, tuning a mortice-and-tenon joint, chopping the occasional mortice, and so on. If I have a dozen mortices to cut, especially in Australian hardwoods, then I would route them out and square them up with a chisel. But when I only have a few, it is a luxury to use an OBM chisel. Similarly, I have several "sets" of chisels that I suspect would not work well in Adam's workshop as they require a delicate touch, which is slow: AE Berg, Blue Spruce, even the Witherbys. I am not sure where to place the Japanese chisels - too fragile for wasting hardwood? So when I choose to waste the timber as quickly as possible, I turn to vintage firmers - large, thick blades on large thick handles. Nothing fancy here, but it gets the work done, and quickly.
One might say the same about handplanes. Most are set up for finer shavings than needed. Of course it does depend on the timber used, with Aussie timber presenting its own special difficulties, but by-and-large we live in the era of the smoother, not the fore- and scrub plane. I think that many of the new era handtools are geared towards the Gentleman cabinetmaker, but not because of affluence, per se, but because woodworking is one of the hobbies of the late 20th Century. It is a reaction to modern industrial life, a desire for simplicity ... whatever. The modern professional would not work this way - he'd use machinery. Only those who spurn machinery for the ways of Yesterday, such as Adam, will really appreciate the relationship between method and tool.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek, excellent post. I believe you have painted the picture as it is. But Adam has admitted to being "unplugged" in his shop- I worry that the next symptom will be a state of being "unglued"....Philip Marcou
Derek:
Well put and indisputable, but possibly there are more angles? There appears to be a scale which runs from the skilled and affluent dilletant who buys very fine tools, like say Philip's planes, for the fun and the beauty of the thing, and uses them with skill. On the other end are those who have little skill and buy the same tools for more complex reasons to include the hope that the tools will fill the gaps in their abilities.
I'm not expressing this very well. Lets look at vices as an example. No vice is a thing of beauty like Philip's planes; vices are intensely practical tools. Granted, some, like pattern makers' and carvers' vices have special features that can be necessary ( I worked in a foundary where patterns were actually made using them) and could be a lot of fun, but still, they either hold wood steadily where you want it, of they don't. John White's workbench uses wooden jam cleats and Pony clamps and pipes to do the trick, for about $40 worth of parts in a very versitile setup. At my cabin, I have a bench that belonged to an immigrant craftsman in the late 19th century. The main clamp there is an acme style tightener with a wooden handle that runs through a loose floor to benchtop board and allowa a good grip from many angles.
Yet there is much discussion and showing off of vices in the multi-hundred dollar range. I would argue diminishing marginal returns applies here with a vengeance. So...?
This is not a judgment, BTW. If guys want to blow money, I would be the last to throw stones as I live in a large glass house and blow more than I should. It is just an interesting phenominon.
And, to be fully honest, if I could fnd a good pattern-makers vice at a decent price, I'd own it in a heartbeat. Don't need it, though. It would just be fun.
Edited 4/12/2007 9:30 am ET by Joe Sullivan
What's the question again? I've really lost track, but for what it's worth, here's a few observations about chisels.
I personally like chisels a lot. I think it stems in part from a history of carving in the round as sculpture from teen years on -- long before getting into woodworking and making furniture. I particularly like old steel, though am happy to use high quality modern stuff too.
As far as types, like the old saying goes, form follows function. Most of us are not performing particularly esoteric functions with our chisels. Therefore three main types are all that is required to do most jobs associated with furniture making and joints: (1) bench (e.g., Stanley 750 style or similar medium to short blade socket chisels), (2) paring (similar to bench, but with significantly longer blades), and (3)mortise (Pigstickers like the new Ashley Isles are the epitome of this type as far as I'm concerned, though European - e.g., Two Cherries - versions exist). With some sort of set (at least a range of most used widths) of each of these three types, a woodworker will have 95% of his or her chisel needs met (cranked, skew, corner, swan neck and other specialty versions may occassionally be called for).
From there, style (handle shape, square or bevel side, length, socket vs, tang, hoops, materials for handle and steels) and finish (the attention to the crafting of the tool) become the differentiators, and personal preference and work habits make definitive answers essentiailly impossible.
I can tell you what I've come to like and works best for me, but that may well not do much to inform your choices depending upon your work with chisels and how you like to do it. More important I suppose to simply understand your own likes and dislikes as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each feature (e.g., square vs, bevel edges) for actually working wood in various ways and choose from there. As far as terminology, that's useful to writers and historians who wish to addess chisels I suppose, but doesn't mater much in chopping a dovetail or paring a tenon.
A good sensible response to the question, and one that brings us back up from the rather philosophical mist into which I was descending.
As it happens, your set sounds like it pretty much matches what I have.
But there are lots of others out there that must (or might) be good for something. They sure aren't cheap. So the real original question weeks ago was, what are the various kinds, and what are they good for?
Joe, I don't think I'm understanding what you mean by "other kinds?" I'm not aware of "other kinds" beyond the three types I mentioned and the differing styles/features/materials within each of those types (again, specialty chisels, like cranked or swan neck, excepted).
Are you talking about framing chisels?
Large scale M&T chisels?
Slicks, like those often used for boatbuilding?
Supreme quality tools like the Blue Spruce dovetail set?
As you can see, I'm at a loss as far as the question.
Edited 4/11/2007 10:58 pm ET by Samson
The original question was kind of a cataloguing and defining question -- what kinds of chisels are there and what are they good for. It was all inclusive. Framing, sash, dovetail, paring, bench, firmer, mortising, with or without bevels or sockets or schlag rings.
For a very simple tool, there is a bewildering complexity of forms types and styles.
I was trying to develop a thorough if not comprehensive list with general definitions and an idea of what they are good for, and why the specific charcteristics are valuable.
Edited 4/11/2007 11:39 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
See, I find the Stanley 750 to be too stout. They are punch like. I think LN did a good job of lightening them up but they are still too heavy for me. I prefer a thinner chisel. They are easier to sharpen, and I think they function better.And that was kinda my point. 200 years ago when hand cut dovetails were the common way to join boards, cabinetmakers' chisels didn't look like the 750's. They had socket chisels like the 750's available to them, but they didn't as rule chose them. Instead, they chose thin, tanged, square sided chisels. So that's my point. I think there are better choices in chisels, that are better suited to the work we do. I think chisel manufacturers are making and marketing the wrong chisels, and the tool reviewers rate them on the manufacturers criteria. For me, looking back 200 years is looking to a time when large numbers of folks did this for a living. They chopped dovetails just like we do, yet our tools are completely different. Why is that? They had hundreds of years of tradtition instructing them and we have Tage Frid.Adam
P.S. I think carvers work wood particularly beautiful. I think Mack Headley is a really a carver. Sometimes I think he is carving with his planes.
The following is not intended to be contentious - more like good natured debate over a beer. You no doubt have me outmatched for debating any woodworking topic, but I'm happy playing the straight man:
See, I find the Stanley 750 to be too stout. They are punch like. I think LN did a good job of lightening them up but they are still too heavy for me.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I think the everlasts are all out of balance and far too heavy (especially at the top), while others love them.
I prefer a thinner chisel. They are easier to sharpen, and I think they function better.
Doesn't thinner necessitate some comprimise as far as it's ability to take chopping and the like without flex? I don't see why a thinner chisel would be any easier to sharpen? And I don't see why, once sharpened, they would "function" differently in any way. What did you have in mind as far as better function? - do they cut better, handle better, fit into spaces better?
And that was kinda my point. 200 years ago when hand cut dovetails were the common way to join boards, cabinetmakers' chisels didn't look like the 750's. They had socket chisels like the 750's available to them, but they didn't as rule chose them. Instead, they chose thin, tanged, square sided chisels.
I had always understood that socket chisels are much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive to forge - at least using 18th c* technology. Perhaps that accounts for use of tangs more often?
So that's my point. I think there are better choices in chisels, that are better suited to the work we do. I think chisel manufacturers are making and marketing the wrong chisels ...
What would these chisels look like? Can you link to or post a picture. I guess I'm not familiar with whatever it is you are referring to.
and the tool reviewers rate them on the manufacturers criteria.
On this, and your post up thread re: steel tests being dubious measures, we are in complete agreement.
For me, looking back 200 years is looking to a time when large numbers of folks did this for a living. They chopped dovetails just like we do, yet our tools are completely different. Why is that? They had hundreds of years of tradtition instructing them and we have Tage Frid.
Again, "completely different"? Really?
And Tage probably had a few gust of tradition in his sails, right? I mean you don't think all his techniques and tool choices were his own invention?
Finally, you seem to assume that cabinet making reached its peak 200 years ago, and that the tools they used must have therefore been the best and most appropriate for the job. Why is this necessarily so? A chisel is a simple and ancient implement. A master could get by using a cheap modern stanley with a plastic handle. Indeed, I bet your friend who carved the head piece with the 1" chisel would have had little problem doing it with a 1 chisel I picked up at Home Depot. In short, I wonder whether cabinet makers 200 years ago thought very hard about the relatively minor distinctions that you take as so significant?
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Different strokes is fine. The question I have is whether this chisel would do well head to head in a real life comparison. My guess is not. My suggestion is that FWW do that comparison and write the article. My editorial schedule is full (and this isn't my sort of article).
Doesn't thinner necessitate some comprimise as far as it's ability to take chopping and the like without flex?
Not to be flippant, but there's flex and there's flex. Exactly how hard are we hitting our chisels? I think tools like the Stanley 750 were designed for hacks, who beat dull tools unmercilessly.
I don't see why a thinner chisel would be any easier to sharpen?
Stanley made this claim about their plane irons in the early 20th c. When I first heard it, I thought it preposterous. But a thinner blade has a smaller bevel which is less metal to grind and hone. That long bevel does nothing for you in use. The long bevel can help you free hand hone.
And I don't see why, once sharpened, they would "function" differently in any way. What did you have in mind as far as better function? - do they cut better, handle better, fit into spaces better?
I've not done a study on this but my guess is yes, yes and yes.
Cut better- yes
After a few hits every chisel ceases to be a chisel and becomes a wedge, as previously cut fibers crush against the bevel, preventing further penetration. Given the same exact angle, the thinner chisel should penetrate deeper. I have firming chisels whose cannels are 1/16" (like a carving tool). Contrast that with a 750 whose cannel could be 1/4" or more. I have a chance at burying my cannel and still cutting, where you probably don't with the 750/LN. That's just one operation, but a "mission critical" one, IMHO.
Handling better- maybe
Handling is personal preference, I think. Balance is important. I think low weight is helpful and I think most would agree, but I may be mistaken.
Tight spaces- yes and
The beveled sides necessary for a stouter tool to reach tight spots are a bad structural and thermal detail. A thinner, square-sided chisel is better structurally because the corner is backed up directly. Along the same vein, the heat transfer is more similar to the center, unlike a stouter tool. This helps the chisel conduct away the heat of grinding more uniformly, saving the most vulnerable corners from drawing down their temper. W-1 tool steel has a very low temper temperature, very easy to achieve at a grindstone. (You can't wait until the chisel is too hot to touch. That means the edge is probably already overheated. Period grinders were literally stone cold.)
I wonder whether cabinet makers 200 years ago thought very hard about the relatively minor distinctions that you take as so significant?
Again, not being flippant, I'm not smart enough to figure that out. I don't know how they felt about their tools. I know that tools evolved and I assume market forces along with industrial advances drove that evolution. Our market forces seem to have driven our tools away from performance and towards lowering manufacturing costs.
As to the superiority of 18th c cabinetmakers, I guess that's my opinion. I see the late 18th and early 19th centuries as the perfect storm for furnituremaking and hand tool skills. The whole industry worked by hand, had impossibly high standards, (especially artistically) and fabulously wealthy customers for whom no extravagance was too much. Soon thereafter, the furnituremaking industry moved into factories and those factories sought market share by decreasing costs, decreasing prices, decreasing wages, and selling to the lower class. I know there remained small village shops' like Walter Rose's. But it takes more than a village carpenter to raise a cabinetmaker.
Look, maybe I'm 100% dead wrong. I guess I'd really like to read this article, all sexy and glossy in FWW. And if Asa refuses, then maybe I can talk someone into it at PW. My bottom line is that I think there's a lot more to this story than we've heard thus far. The Japanese claim their steel is better so what do we do? We rate their dog gone steel! There's a whole lot more to a chisel than that. FWW actually ran an article years ago that said as much. I'd just like to see more analysis of this issue. I suspect, done honestly, the winning chisels will look more like 18th c tools, than 750's.
Adam
The question I have is whether [a stanley 750 or similar style socket chisel] would do well head to head [against an 18th century tang/thin square blade type] in a real life comparison. My guess is not. My suggestion is that FWW do that comparison and write the article. My editorial schedule is full (and this isn't my sort of article).
I’d like to see such a comparison, though I’m skeptical that, after allowing for personal preferences, there would be truly significant differences.
At the end of the day, the design of any tool that must handle more than one specific task ends up a compromise. The designer aims for the characteristics that he or she thinks will allow the tool to do the best job on the most tasks, recognizing that often this will mean that the tool is not optimal for any particular task. Bench chisels are the most generalized chisels - paring is more special, mortise even more so, and on down the line to swan neck lock mortise and so on.
19th and 20th century paring chisels are thin and long. In paring operations I appreciate the thinness a great deal. To the extent bench chisels are also called upon to pare, I can imagine that the thin 18th century tang type would excel. For light chopping, on the other hand, or in other operations the more rigid and robust socket type might excel.
It’s nice to be able to pick the design compromises that best fit your own personal preferences and working style.
I’ve got nothing against tanged chisels. Indeed, all my carving chisels (Japanese, Taylor, Buck, Addis, Berg, etc.) are tanged. I think at some point woodworkers were fed up with the tang and ferule set up for bench chisesls in that it was not as robust a set up as a socket - ferules and tanged wooden handles split under reasonable use too often. Sockets avoid this, but require a rather different blade because the blade must meet the cone of the socket. Perhaps this was a compromise trading a a slightly more optimal blade for a significantly more optimal handle?
There's flex and there's flex. Exactly how hard are we hitting our chisels? I think tools like the Stanley 750 were designed for hacks, who beat dull tools unmercilessly.
Chopping dovetails in hard woods would seem about the most vigorous type of pounding a bench chisel should see. Mortises, a very heavy chopping operation, are best done with dedicated mortising chisels. Perhaps Stanley 750's and the like were designed to be a jack-of-all-trades type of chisel that could take the occasional mortise-creation-like pounding?
Then again, a more rigid blade seems like it might have slight advantages in terms of control and delivering force without potential disruption or diminution that might accompany flex.
Occasionally, slight leveraging of various sorts is also called for, and a stouter blade might be more robust in these instances as well?
Finally, different width 750-style chisels have different relative thicknesses. I would bet a 1" 750 blade is not significantly thicker than a 1" 18th c. tang blade. It’s only in the thinner widths that the socket models are typically proportionally thicker at the business end.
A thinner blade has a smaller bevel which is less metal to grind and hone [and hence is easier to sharpen].
Perhaps this is literally true if you are engaged in wholesale reestablishment of the primary angle, but even then, the extra "work" is negligible in my experience to the point of being unnoticeable. And for day-to-day chisel use, where most of use a secondary bevel in honing, there is no difference.
Cut better- yes. After a few hits every chisel ceases to be a chisel and becomes a wedge, as previously cut fibers crush against the bevel, preventing further penetration. Given the same exact angle, the thinner chisel should penetrate deeper. I have firming chisels whose cannels are 1/16" (like a carving tool). Contrast that with a 750 whose cannel could be 1/4" or more. I have a chance at burying my cannel and still cutting, where you probably don't with the 750/LN. That's just one operation, but a "mission critical" one, IMHO.
This is an interesting hypothesis. I’d like to see some empirical tests to determine whether the secondary bevel on my 750 style 1/4" would really hinder penetration significantly compared to a very thin blade like the one you describe. It would indeed also be interesting to know whether (assuming there is a difference in depth, the force needed to achieve it, or the ability to control the blade) the difference is noticeable (like that of sawing with a fine saw vs. and inferior one) or more of a negligible thing.
The beveled sides necessary for a stouter tool to reach tight spots are a bad structural and thermal detail. A thinner, square-sided chisel is better structurally because the corner is backed up directly. Along the same vein, the heat transfer is more similar to the center, unlike a stouter tool. This helps the chisel conduct away the heat of grinding more uniformly, saving the most vulnerable corners from drawing down their temper. W-1 tool steel has a very low temper temperature, very easy to achieve at a grindstone. (You can't wait until the chisel is too hot to touch. That means the edge is probably already overheated. Period grinders were literally stone cold.)
I agree that the beveled corners create this issue. But in my actual shop, I rarely use a grinder unless I’m rehabilitating an old or damaged tool, even then, coarse diamond plates are often my choice as they are very fast as well and less susceptible to "abrupt user error" shall we say. For everyday sharpening and honing, my water stones do not create much heat ;-)
In addition, socket chisels with unbeveled ("square" or "firmer" to some) sides are available. I understand that in the narrower widths where the blades are thicker, these square sides can become an impediment in operations like DT clean-out. They might be advantageous for groove bottom cleaning I suppose.
My bottom line is that I think there's a lot more to this story than we've heard thus far.
Here here. I agree completely.
In regard to 750-stype vs 18th C. tanged chisel thickness:
The 1" firmer in Seaton's chest is 1/16" thick at the start of the cannel, and 3/16" at the shoulder. The 2" T.Shaw is also 1/16" at the start of the bevel. (The 2" cast steel firmer is 3/16" at the cannel).
My full length 1" 750 is a healthy 1/8th at in thickness just before the bevel, and a full 1/4 just before meeting the socket as meansured using a caliper.
So the older tangs are a good deal thinner even in the wider selections.
I agree. I guess as far as Joe's interest is concerned, when the details are considered (blade thicknesss, design, handle) there are as many varieties of chisels as planes and chisels are easily as interesting and fun to use. When the various techniques are considered, there's plenty to research, practice and write about.Adam
Indeed. Very interesting. And now I know why it has not been conprehensively treated in an article or short series. However, Adam, I agree with you that it should be.Joe
Joe wrote: And now I know why it has not been conprehensively treated in an article or short series. However, Adam, I agree with you that it should be.
Now I am willing to give my time to doing just this, that is write a humungous and detailed report on chisel types. First, however, all of you will have to send me every one of your chisels for scrutiny. :) :) :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Do I have to pay freight, too?Joe
Do I have to pay freight, too?
Joe
No. Adam said he would take care of that. :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
You're kidding, but I've done that on several occassions. My sense is that folks have been dismissive of ths subject. They get a chisel, sharpen it as they would any other, then beat on it as they would any other, then proclaim it crap. What I'd prefer is to either have someone more open minded* than myself review the tools, or have individual advocates for each chisel- now that would be an interesting article. Shipping tools around is one way to help facillitate that. I'd be happy to ship some early chisels, sharpened and handled to my liking, for consideration. I believe this is what it takes. Adam
P.S. My limited experience with open minded woodworkers is that they are often also inexperienced woodworkers- which can be good. After a few thousand hand cut dovetails and mortises, you get a sort of rhythm that any tool or technique will diminish. I form relationships with my tools almost like they are creatures. They take on personalities, I know what I need to do to coax them into doing what I want, etc. I think that would make me, or someone like me, a bad reviewer.
P.S. My limited experience with open minded woodworkers is that they are often also inexperienced woodworkers- which can be good. After a few thousand hand cut dovetails and mortises, you get a sort of rhythm that any tool or technique will diminish. I form relationships with my tools almost like they are creatures. They take on personalities, I know what I need to do to coax them into doing what I want, etc. I think that would make me, or someone like me, a bad reviewer.
Adam
While I was teasing, as all are aware, about sending me your chisels, I actually would enjoy the opportunity to explore and analyse the way the relationship between form and function.
According to your above view, however, I would not be able to say if I was suitable or not. I have been working wood for 25 years plus, but only focussing on handtools for the past 12 years. A thousand dovetails and mortices? No, I've only done about half that by hand. And I own too many chisels - what can I say - I am a fickle-hearted individual with many brief affairs of the heart. On the positive side I do return to each after a dalliance - so my intentions are honourable.
Jokes aside Adam, I do not think that I can agree with you on this one. The problem with a novice is that they not only are open-minded, they are also empty-minded. One does need to know what to look for in order to make valuable observations. What you really want is someone who can make objective observations, that is, be aware of biases and personal preferences, control these, and this be able to record useful information. Gee, I have that type of professional training :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek writes:
"What you really want is someone who can make objective observations, that is, be aware of biases and personal preferences, control these, and this be able to record useful information. Gee, I have that type of professional training :)"
That is the most useful quality in a reviewer. To put aside (as much as possible) your own bias and try to accurately compare test subjects to some standard is very difficult. Subtle things like handle shape and chisel weight will make a big difference to different reviewers. As long as you clearly state what your preferences are, people reading the review at least can be alerted to your own bias and take that into account.
The tests themselves are problematic too. Finding some objective measure to trial all of the different types is tricky because little things affect performance in noticeable if not measurable ways. One can come up with mechanisms and jigs to try to come up with a bench standard, but sometimes these are too far removed from the practical use of the tool.
On one of the other forums I frequent it was asked if there was some ANSI (or other)standard for cutting edge sharpness. I looked it up (having access to such things) and found a specification which involved a test apparatus with a ram and a media to cut into (some rubber material with tightly controlled properties). Sharpness was determined by the distance of penetration on a plunging (as opposed to slicing) cut. Maybe it's a useful standard for comparison purposes, but unless you are chopping your dovetails into car tires or floor matts, it might not have much practical value.
My point (for those who were waiting to see if I had one) is that reviews and comparisons are only as good as the criteria for comparison and the ability of the reviewer to remain objective and to clearly communicate the results.
I nominate Derek. His reviews have been very solid IMO.
David C
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled