# Tool History - when was the Bevel-edged Chisel born?



## Cheshirechappie (29 Jan 2013)

Bevel-edged chisels. We all take them for granted, as if they've existed for ever; if you want a 'mass-market' new chisel, you'll be lucky to find anything else. But when did they first become commonplace? In answering Jimi's recent thread on his Buck and Ryan b/e chisels, I (perhaps rather rashly) suggested about 1890-ish, but am I right?

The evidence - actual and deduced - is as follows. In the late 18th century, 'firmer' chisels were much thinner in the blade than modern ones - more like a modern carving chisel. Benjamin Seaton's chisels (see 'The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton' pub. TATHS), both cast steel and common steel 'firmers' were of this pattern - and he was a joiner and cabinetmaker, familiar with dovetails. With chisels so thin, dovetails are not too much of a problem; the slightest skewing of the edge, and the bevel will clear the dovetail sidewalls. These thinner chisels continued to be available until very late in the 19th or early 20th centuries - enough examples exist, with enough evidence to date reasonably accurately.

Literature around the turn of the 19th/20th century shows b/e chisels were manufactured, but they seem to be a 'special', the rectangular-section firmer, by now somewhat thicker, being the 'stock' chisel for both joiners and cabinetmakers. Salaman (Dictionary of Woodworking Tools, revised edition, page 131) has an extract from a Brades catalogue of 1905 which shows b/e and b/e paring chisels, but alongside their firmer equivalents, and about four firmer patterns to one b/e.

My hunch, backed by no evidence whatever, is that the b/e chisel developed in the late 19th century. Can anybody pin their introduction down any more accurately?


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2013)

If you include stone then the answer would be millions of years ago. 
I'd guess that the first bevel edge chisel (ish) metal tool would be almost as old as metal work itself.

In fact bevel edges would have been first (knife, axe etc), the straight sided firmer chisel being relatively recent (I guess).


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Jan 2013)

That's very well, but there is no direct equivalent on a knife of the bevels on the side of a chisel - knives cut on their sides, so are bound to have bevels on the sides.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Jan 2013)

Well, that's an interesting answer, Jacob. Unfortunately, it's not the answer to the question I asked.

You're not from a family of politicians by any chance, are you?


----------



## toolsntat (29 Jan 2013)

There is a 1678 reference with Moxon here on page 77 
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t_IR ... ew&f=false
Not specifically "bevel edged" but could at least be a forerunner :?: 

Andy


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Jan 2013)

toolsntat":2s8121gb said:


> There is a 1678 reference with Moxon here on page 77
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t_IR ... ew&f=false
> Not specifically "bevel edged" but could at least be a forerunner :?:
> 
> Andy



There is a logic to that. The dovetail was starting to be used about that time, so you'd think the tools to make them easily would evolve at about that time.

However, the b/e didn't seem to become commonplace until much later. I wonder if that is because the regular chisel of the time was fairly thin, and (according to chart in the Seaton tollchest book) had sides that swept outwards from the bolster in a graceful curve, thus giving quite 'sharp' corners which would have cleaned a dovetail easily (and were probably quite vulnerable to damage, too). So, there wasn't a really pressing need for another special tool until chisels got thicker.


----------



## lwilliams (30 Jan 2013)

Here's a Dutch one from 1596:


----------



## Corneel (30 Jan 2013)

You were quicker then me Larry. This chisel was found on Nova Zembla. In the remains of the expedition from Baerentz to find a passage to the East. They lost their ship in the ice. Survived a winter in a hut made from the wreakage. They managed to escape in the spring with a small boat. So this chisel is just a simple ships carpenters one. It is very well made, rather big and indeed quite thin. 

You can find a better image on the site www.rijksmuseum.nl when you search in the collection for beitel. 

If i hadn't have to work last night i would have beat you Larry.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2013)

phil.p":h8m9slwo said:


> That's very well, but there is no direct equivalent on a knife of the bevels on the side of a chisel - knives cut on their sides, so are bound to have bevels on the sides.


Yes but the generally bevelled shape is the more natural as formed by chipping a stone or beating iron on an anvil. A firmer type shape with straight, parallel and square sides, (cut or ground?) would be more difficult to achieve and would be a product of a higher level of industrialisation. Bevels came first, from the very beginning, firmers are the newcomers.
That's my theory anyway.


----------



## Corneel (30 Jan 2013)

Now I can look at the rijksmuseum site (I first posted in the train without full internet access), and I see they have exactly the same picture. Sizes of this chisel: 35,5 cm long and the edge is 4,2cm wide.

https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search/objecten?q=beitel&p=1&ps=12#/NG-NM-7667,3


----------



## AndyT (30 Jan 2013)

Interesting stuff!

I can't answer the question but I can offer a little bit of evidence, from three old books, all aimed at the amateur woodworker wanting to know how the trade experts did things.

First up: "Every Man His Own Mechanic" - Francis Young, 1882:






This is pretty comprehensive on buying the complete kit of tools, with lots of plugs for suppliers. (It includes those new-fangled American iron planes.) But the section on chisels is very brief; this is it:






Confirmation that paring chisels are thinner than the ordinary firmer chisels (I think he meant to write 'the latter are _longer _and thinner) but no mention of bevelled edges.

Exhibit B: "Woodworking" by Paul Hasluck, dated 1912, but (as with so many woodworking books) the same material crops up in slightly different editions at various dates. 






Another book which goes to great lengths to explain all the tools you will need and where to buy them. This is what he has to say about chisels:











Note the naming on the first picture - the bevel edge chisel is shown as one variant of the Firmer - not as a different tool in its own right. If you count bevel-edged in with the firmers they would be harder to spot in catalogues and lists.

The long, bevel-edged paring chisel is also shown.

Lastly, into the twentieth century with Charles Hayward and "Tools for Woodwork" from 1946:






He says that the Firmer Chisel is the ordinary bench chisel, that bevel-edged chisels "are of considerably lighter build and should never be struck with a mallet" and that both types can be obtained extra long. He describes how dovetails should be tackled:

"A bevelled edge chisel will be found handy for cleaning out [ie after chopping away most of the wood with a firmer] because its thin edges enable it to work close into the sloping corners. Men in the trade frequently keep an old nearly worn-out bevelled edge chisel for this purpose. Its shortness makes it less liable to snap."

But then - always keen to help you do without an unnecessary tool - he also shows how you can manage without one by grinding the tip of your firmer chisel like this:






I guess this all confirms what has been said and reminds us that we don't get bevel edge chisels strong enough to be hit until comparatively recently, so where a joint needed to be chopped, the square-edge stocky firmer chisel was the first choice.

(Interesting too that the Nova Zembla chisel was broad enough to be quite strong, even though it was slender. I doubt that it would have been possible in a 1/4" size!)

EDIT: - here is another from the same source - it's a bit hard to tell what shape it was but it does look quite slender - what's the Dutch for Corro-dip? :wink: 

https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search/objecten?q=beitel&p=1&ps=12#/NG-NM-7779-1,7


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Jan 2013)

Regarding the ground off corners in the drawing - I've done that for thirty odd years, but I've not noticed anyone else do it.


----------



## bugbear (30 Jan 2013)

phil.p":2qson4ti said:


> Regarding the ground off corners in the drawing - I've done that for thirty odd years, but I've not noticed anyone else do it.



One of my favourite chisels - a rather massive, and quite long firmer (in the modern sense) by I Sorby - was ground like that when I bought it.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (30 Jan 2013)

Here's an interesting (but not conclusive) tit-bit.

It's from the 1897 C.A. Stelinger & Co. catalogue (they were pretty much the USA Buck and Hickman).

"Chisels with bevel edges are a decided
improvement over the regular style.
In this form of chisel the edge are thinner,
which enables one to work with greater accuracy
in mortises and close places. Besides this,
the tool is made lighter, without sacrificing
strength to any extent."

Now, one shouldn't put too much credence
in the claims of someone with something
to sell, but (to me) the use of the phrase "the regular style"
is rather telling. It implies that bevel edge is NOT the regular style.

This speaks (of course) to the widespread adoption
of bevel edge chisels, not their birth (which was the OP's question)

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (30 Jan 2013)

Thanks BB - that's a useful resource, the Strelinger catalogue of 1896 - more chatty and informative than many. (In case anyone doesn't know already it's readable online at http://www.old-woodworking-tools.com/) where you can see that having bevelled edges on your Ward & Payne firmer chisels raised the price by around 50%.

Next to it in my bookmarks was this catalogue from the Viennese firm of Franz Wertheim a bit earlier, in 1869. Their magnificent full colour catalogue is available to browse from this link:

http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/qr46r156v

Volume 1 is the text (in French) Volume 2 is the pictures. This is the page for chisels:






As you can see, their range is wide - they cover big hefty carpenter's chisels, lighter ones for joiners and a full selection for turners and carvers. But even though these here are listed as they show nothing that we would recognise as a bevel edged chisel.

(The odd tool at Fig 154 is described as a German chisel, adapted to get into tight corners, but it's a one-off in one size.)

So this supports the suggestion that bevel edged chisels did not appear until the late C19th.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2013)

AndyT":kjzgalz4 said:


> ........
> So this supports the suggestion that bevel edged chisels did not appear until the late C19th.


Except for the bevel edge chisels such as the one above from C16 and all the other variants from the year dot. 
I can't see why anyone thinks there were only firmers, and then bevel edged as a later development. This might be true of a particular firm or catalogue but certainly not true of tool making as a whole as we see clearly from the evidence.


----------



## AndyT (30 Jan 2013)

Ok, I should have said:

So this supports the suggestion that parallel-sided bevel edged chisels (ie of consistent width along the whole length) did not appear as a readily available tool until the late C19th.

There is perhaps another related question to be looked at - when and why did the flared shape of chisel go out of use in western Europe? (Rutlands used to list some of this shape as 'Chinese chisels' so maybe they are still used there.)


----------



## Cheshirechappie (30 Jan 2013)

Interesting - and thanks to all who have contributed positively.

Conclusions so far:

1) The origins of the bevel-edged chisel are old, and certainly before 1596.

2) Despite which, in Britain and North America at least, the type was not as common as the square-edged firmer until about the end of the 19th century.

So, why did the type apparently not catch on in Britain and North America until so late? Where they more common in Europe before the late 19th century?

To try to answer AndyT's question about chisels becoming straight-sided, the chart on page 66 of 'Benjamin Seaton's Tool Chest' suggests early in the 19th century. Benjamin's late 18th century chisels all have a distinct flare from shoulder to edge, though not curving sides. The Chinese chisel (straight sides, thin blade, strong flare from bolster to edge) is listed as a special chisel in Ward and Payne's 1911 catalogue, as reprinted in Salaman's Dictionary of Woodworking Tools. Salaman states that they were made for export, though he doesn't say where to.


----------



## Corneel (30 Jan 2013)

In Felibien, you can find both chisel types, straight sides and tapered sides. Alas, my French is very poor, so I don't know whta the text sais.
This is from 1690 or so. Tapered sides you also find on old paintings. I guess this is the earlier type. 

Page 189:
http://www.toolemera.com/bkpdf/felibienexcerpt.pdf

In Roubo you can find some straight sided ones. Roubo is around 1770

http://www.toolemera.com/bkpdf/roubomichaudBK.pdf

So at least in France, they switched somewhere early 18th century, when you look at just these two sources.


----------



## bugbear (31 Jan 2013)

There is a handy things called the Illustrated Sheffield list, which was agreed jointly by the Sheffield tool makers
(and published jointly as a cost savings exercise - they also agreed the prices ...  ).

The tools listed/shown can be reasonably assumed to be the ones they were making in significant quanties.

The 3rd edition, 1855, shows chisels but none have bevelled edges.

The situation is unchanged for the 11th/12th edition (1885).

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2013)

There's an interesting and instructive post about chisels on Adam Cherubini's blog which people who read this thread might like to have a look at.
He shows some early Sheffield-made chisels and discusses the shape, the steel and the working characteristics. They are for sale too - or most likely _were_ for sale, once you read this.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/arts-mysteries-blogs/shop-clean-up

[Also, Alf has a good chisel-related blog post today - we still miss you Alf!

http://cornishworkshop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/stanley-sweetheart-chisel.html]


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Feb 2013)

Now that is interesting - thanks for posting those, Andy.

Cherubini notes that not only were the earlier Sheffield-made firmers much thinner than modern chisels, but that they tapered in width and thickness, and the sides were not quite square to the face, but slightly bevelled. I checked my early paring chisel with an engineer's vernier protractor, and whilst it isn't easy to measure accurately because the chisel is so thin, the sides do bevel at 4 degrees on one side, and 5 degrees on the other. (For comparison, a 1-in-8 dovetail slope is 7 degrees, near enough.)

These 'bevels' are so slight, I suspect they have been put in at the grinding stage during manufacture, and probably by eye given that my example varies one side to the other. Nevertheless, they are definitely bevelled. I'm not sure that they are bevelled enough to be called a bevelled-edge chisel, though.

A thin-bladed chisel with a slight bevel to the sides will easily work into a square corner, and with only a little skewing of the blade, aa acute corner such as a dovetail. So a cabinetmaker equipped with a set of such firmers would not have need for a modern b/e chisel.

Did the modern b/e develop not because of a demand for a dovetial-compatable chisel, but because chisels became thicker and stronger, and therefore needed more clearance on the side angle to get into acute corners, I wonder?

P.S. The Stanley Sweetheart chisels look like they may be good 'uns, too; though personally, I associate socket chisels with heavier-duty work, so not really my cup of tea for delicate benchwork.


----------



## Corneel (14 Feb 2013)

Why is noone producing western laminated chisels anymore? 

I have some good quality Japanese chisels and they are marvelous. Very hard edge, keeps its edge for a very long time and is still easy to sharpen. And not more expensive then a good LN or LV chisel. So, with all these expensive Western chisels on the market, why not one of these 18th/19th century designs?


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2013)

Corneel":1czzjmbn said:


> Why is no-one producing western laminated chisels any more?



I think the simple reason is that there is very little demand - and those who do want something like that know that they can buy them second hand for very little money.

The ordinary trade chisel - what would have been called a firmer - is now quite thick and very strong and is a good enough general purpose tool to satisfy the occasional need when a router cannot be used.


----------



## Corneel (15 Feb 2013)

It still doesn't make sense. Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley, Ashly Iles, Bleu Spruce, to name just a few, see a market for high end, cabinet makers chisels, despite the large supply of vintage stuff still available. But noone wants to go one step further and produce real quality laminated thin chisel anymore.

I guess it's just a case of lost skills.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Feb 2013)

I think the reason for British toolmakers ceasing to make laminated irons may be down to steelmaking history. During the late 18th and early 19th century, all steel had to be made by either the cementation process (packing bars of fine quality wrought iron with charcoal in sealed containers, and heating for about a week until the iron had absorbed enough carbon) or by the Huntsman crucible cast steel process (packing cementation steel in small crucibles, heating to melt the charge and thus make it more homogenous than cementation steel, and casting it into ingots). Both processes are labour intensive, so output was limited, and the cost of the product high. Economising the use of steel - especially the best 'cast steel' grade - was therefore economically sensible, hence the use of wrought iron backings welded to steel edges in such tools as mortice chisels.

Bulk steelmaking became possible in about 1855 by the invention of the Bessemer process, but early results were patchy. It wasn't until about the mid 1860s that the problems were solved, and the process was being used extensively to make steel of good quality. This meant that many of the uses of cast steel were now supplied by much cheaper Bessemer steel. This would, I suspect, have the effect of driving down the price of cast steel, There being fewer markets for it, so there was no longer a need to economise the use of cast steel, and the highly-skilled welding operation could be abandoned in favour of forging tools from solid cast steel.

There is no quality advantage to laminating cast steel to wrought iron, over using solid cast steel. The cutting edge is the same material in both cases. So I think the abandonment of laminating was down to metallurgical invention and economics, and not to questions of quality at all.


----------



## Jacob (15 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":3ahvqqlh said:


> .....
> There is no quality advantage to laminating cast steel to wrought iron, over using solid cast steel. .....


I think there is a big advantage in that it makes (hand) sharpening a lot easier - the bulk of metal to be removed is the softer iron backing. This is really noticeable with mortice chisels. Similarly the laminated Jap 'smoothcut' plane blade is noticeably easier to sharpen than say the ordinary Record tungsten vanadium.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Feb 2013)

Jacob":2aqrqeik said:


> Cheshirechappie":2aqrqeik said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...




In the case of vintage mortice chisels, I'm not sure that I agree. There may be a minor difference with regrinding a primary bevel, but most honing attacks the first 1/32" to 1/8" of the bevel, which is the hard steel bit whether you have a laminated or solid chisel.

In the case of Jap 'Smoothcut' iron - not relevant to the current discussion about vintage tools, but I have to say that when I used such an iron, many years ago, I noticed little difference in sharpening time compared to a standard Record iron or a thicker Clifton iron. (I subsequently abandoned the laminated iron in favour of the Clifton, but mainly on grounds of additional stiffness.)


----------



## Corneel (15 Feb 2013)

I think a company like LN could cash quite nicely with a thin laminated chisel in 18th century style. It would be something realy special. The advantages are obvious. You can make the steelbit much harder while keeping the strength of the chisel and the ease of sharpening. My Koyamaichi chisels are really something special in this regard. 

But I'm afraid they just can't do it anymore.


----------



## Jacob (15 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":24g35drc said:


> ....In the case of vintage mortice chisels, I'm not sure that I agree. There may be a minor difference with regrinding a primary bevel, but most honing attacks the first 1/32" to 1/8" of the bevel, which is the hard steel bit whether you have a laminated or solid chisel.


"Sharpening" involves taking off the whole bevel (whatever your regime) not just honing the edge. So soft backing metal makes "sharpening" easier. NB some of us don't think in terms of 'primary' and 'secondary' bevel, it's all one; flat, convex, hollow ground, double, etc. whatever. It's all one, it's all gotta go!


> In the case of Jap 'Smoothcut' iron - not relevant to the current discussion about vintage tools, but I have to say that when I used such an iron, many years ago, I noticed little difference in sharpening time compared to a standard Record iron or a thicker Clifton iron. (I subsequently abandoned the laminated iron in favour of the Clifton, but mainly on grounds of additional stiffness.)


I sharpen both old Record and laminated Smoothcut quite often and the difference is very noticeable.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Feb 2013)

Jacob - This is a discussion about the evoution of the bevel-edged chisel; perhaps we could leave arguments about sharpening for other, more appropriate, threads. I suspect that the toolmakers of the nineteenth century would not have produced tools that could not be sharpened with the methods available at the time, because they wouldn't have sold many. They would have concentrated on making saleable tools with a view to making a profit, so would have done their best to supply demand for good quality steel, and forms the craftsman found suited to their work. They would have regarded the precise techniques of sharpening as a matter for the craftsman at the bench.

The original question was, 'When did the bevel-edged chisel come into being'. We have uncovered some interesting snippets of history in trying to answer that question, and enjoyed some discussion about tool shapes. Let's not get side-tracked.


----------



## GazPal (16 Feb 2013)

Plane blades by Stanley and Record were laminated up until WWII with a few plane manufacturers using laminated blades up until the 1960's. 

A quick test to find whether or not a blade/iron is laminated can be made by pickling a blade in warm citric acid/hot white vinegar until the blade/iron darkens. The harder edge steel darkens to form quite a contrast to any softer backing steel/iron present and this makes it possible to clearly define whether or not a blade/iron is laminated, but you can also quantify the extent by which a homogeneous steel iron/blade has been hardened during processing. This point is typically just shy of the slot in plane irons and approx 1.1/2" - 2" short of the haft on chisels.

The difference between laminated and homogeneous steel irons/blades can definitely be felt when sharpening single bevels by hand. This is more evident when dealing with Japanese chisels made using harder edge steels

-------------

I'm given to believe most chisel blades (Carpentry and masonry) bore a flared profile up until the mid C19th and the wider use of drop forging technique involving dies which lends itself to the production of more uniform sizes. Newly made mallet headed masonry chisels can still be found with a taper from edge to bolster and their utility can be felt in their balance and the way they handle during use. Bevel edged chisels - by virtue of the extra cost involved during manufacture and the then need to hand forge bevels - were more the reserve of specialist users and not as widely owned or used by carpenters and joiners unless they were necessary. Cost would have been prohibitive unless the purchase was justifiable. Bench chisels - by definition - were once what we'd name firmer chisels, although modern - more robust - firmer chisels are more capable of handling light mortising work than their thinner bladed predecessors.


----------



## Corneel (16 Feb 2013)

I am probably too much an engineer to ever understand anything about marketing. But I would say, it would be a great sales argument when you can sell cabinet makers chisels like the originals when the most intricate furniture ever was made. So, laminated, thin, tapered, firmer chisels. Just like these described by Adam Cherubini.


----------



## Jacob (16 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2w2r66th said:


> Jacob - This is a discussion about the evoution of the bevel-edged chisel; perhaps we could leave arguments about sharpening for other, more appropriate, threads.....


Feel free! :lol: 
I was responding to _your_ comments about laminated tools, which inevitably leads to (you know what :roll: )


GazPal":2w2r66th said:


> Plane blades by Stanley and Record were laminated up until WWII with a few plane manufacturers using laminated blades up until the 1960's.
> .........


I've discovered several laminated blades (Record and others) where I didn't expect it - for some reason the lamination joint line shows up visibly if you grind with a coarse belt sander, but not with a wheel grindstone.


----------



## AndyT (16 Feb 2013)

I think we are getting somewhere with the contributions from CC and Gazpal about steel types and the introduction of steel that was cheap enough to use for the whole tool. You've made me realise that I have only the vaguest idea of how chisels were/are made. Perhaps if I try a summary, someone could fill in the gaps a bit?

So, in the 18th and early 19th centuries, when good edge-retaining steel was hard to make, a small amount of steel would be welded onto a bigger piece of wrought iron, one tool at a time, by someone working with a hammer and anvil. He would hand forge the steel to stretch it out into the right shape, and hammer it to have a rectangular cross-section. [Maybe using a trip-hammer?] The cutting end would be ground to a bevel. The long surfaces would be ground as well, by eye, removing the minimum amount of metal, so keeping the rectangular cross-section, but possibly introducing a few degrees of slope on the whole of the edges, leaving a trapezoidal shape.

[I think I have read somewhere that a long strip of steel would be welded to a long rectangle of iron, and then cut transversely into strips, each one as wide as a chisel - is that right or have I imagined that?]

If bevelled edges were wanted, would they be made by forging them, or by lots of grinding? Both methods sound expensive and therefore avoided if not really needed.

When cast steel was introduced, there was no need to weld steel to make the edge. 
Manufacture would have initially been the same as before (I guess) but sooner or later someone realised that drop forging could make the whole shape in one or two mechanised blows. There's a useful illustration in "The Ken Hawley Experience" showing drop forgings of chisels:







Somehow the 'fash' would have been cut away - and I guess that tidying up would have ended with lots of grinding. And maybe that's the time when it becomes just as cheap and easy to make the die shape trapezoidal to make a bevel edge chisel - would it have actually been an easier shape to forge?

Presumably by now, the grinding is all automated and there is no stage equivalent to the hand forging, where the dimensions are controlled by how many times a smith hits the metal with a hammer.

Thinking about this makes me realise that I really ought to get to Sheffield and visit Abbeydale Hamlet and the Ken Hawley Collection, where I suspect the answer would be easily visible!


----------



## GazPal (16 Feb 2013)

Jacob":d8ilp5bz said:


> GazPal":d8ilp5bz said:
> 
> 
> > Plane blades by Stanley and Record were laminated up until WWII with a few plane manufacturers using laminated blades up until the 1960's.
> ...



Yes, patterns can be exposed by grinding/use of the sharpening stone (Japanese sword polishers (Togishi) are renowned for this when exposing "Hamon" and other characteristics resulting from lamination) as soft and hard steels erode in differing ways to expose a unique surface finish/texture, but etching - in the way I mentioned - tends to be least invasive and can also expose variations in the grain produced during lamination. Truth be known, stones which abrade more readily than those we'd consider hard and with higher wear resistance will tend to remove steel more readily due to the continuous exposure of fresh cutting particles, whilst a finer finish/polish results from the addition of slurry to the stone surface.


----------



## GazPal (16 Feb 2013)

Hi Andy,  

Grinding tends to be the quicker route when bevelling, but there's a lot of waste when done in any quantity and potential for over tempering the steel - through inadvertent overheating - within which future cutting edges lie. For better quality I'd have thought forged bevels would tend to produce better end results and less grinder work. 

We used to have a blacksmith's shop tied to the family cabinetry business when I was a kid and used to find myself pressed into service by my uncle (The blacksmith) from time to time during my apprenticeship. It was both fascinating and a brilliant opportunity. I think pre crucible cast steel chisel and plane irons would have been produced on a unit to unit basis, but know they used to produce laminated strips in the manner you've described. The strips would then be fully annealed before guillotining down to size and put through the hardening and tempering process. The older method involving individual forgings would still be used whenever making limited number of pieces, as the smith would clip a piece of tool steel ready for lamination onto a wrought iron or mild steel billet. 

I'd honestly assume bevel edged chisels pre-date currently held datelines by quite a few centuries or even millennia (The Egyptians used dovetail joints in their woodwork), but the true answer to the question lays somewhere in the future findings of archaeologists.


----------



## bugbear (18 Feb 2013)

An interesting question is why bevel edges chisels have some *low* angle bevels on their sides. If the (only) purpose were to allow a straight through cut on a dovetail, the sides only need to be low enough to clear a (say) 1:5 angle, which is around 80 degrees.

So why don't all BE chisels look like LN/Ward Aristocrat, which requires less grinding?

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (18 Feb 2013)

That's a good question. I don't think dovetails are the reason. Why would a ships carpenter in 16th century Netherlands have beveled chisels? The ships were nice, with lots of decorated carving stuff, but dovetails?

Maybe it was just a weight saving thing?

I do know thin chisels can be very usefull sometimes when you want to get into tight places. For example making a smoothing plane needs a thin chisel, so you can pair the bed all the way through the mouth. Just an example. I am sure there are plenty of other examples in real life.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Feb 2013)

bugbear":3jkljkqq said:


> An interesting question is why bevel edges chisels have some *low* angle bevels on their sides. If the (only) purpose were to allow a straight through cut on a dovetail, the sides only need to be low enough to clear a (say) 1:5 angle, which is around 80 degrees.
> 
> So why don't all BE chisels look like LN/Ward Aristocrat, which requires less grinding?
> 
> BugBear




That IS a good question.

I've been doing some background research on steelmaking history (which I'm not yet confident enough to incorporate into a post, and it is a bit of a minority interest as well), and into the dates of introduction of tool manufacturing techniques. 

Broadly, as far as tool making is concerned, until the introduction of the power hammer, the smith had two methods at his disposal. The first was hand hammer and anvil, perhaps with the assistance of a second man with a large hammer - the 'striker' - to assist with larger pieces. The second was the water-driven tilt hammer. Both methods use (essentialy) a flat-faced hammer on either a flat-faced anvil or a pair of shaped dies, one fixed in the anvil, and one hand-held by the smith to form shapes such as rounds, or perhaps bolster/tangs. I suspect (perhaps Richard T or others with smithing experience could comment?) that forming rectangular sections by hand and eye is easier than forming bevel-edged type sections. Any minor bevels (such as we have found on early 19th century firmers) could be better made by grinding.

The small 'spring hammer' beloved of Sheffield tool makers was (probably) developed around 1860 (James Nasmyth's steam hammer was first sold around 1840, but was an altogether bigger beast intended for heavy forging.) The firm of Pattinson Brothers, much associated with spring hammers, was formed in 1856, and is still in business today, though the bulk of their work is now medium-heavy sub-contract machining. These small hammers used shaped dies extensively, and were a great improvement because the kept the dies in much better alignment than is possible by hand alone, and they could apply a far higher strike-rate than is possible by hand. The b/e section would be easier to make with such equipment, but for some reason, it didn't happen.

The next development was drop-forging, in which a heavy mass is lifted between guides, then allowed to drop onto the anvil from several feet. They can apply enough 'thump' in one blow to produce a shape that may take a hundred blows from a smaller hammer, so clearly offer the potential to increase productivity. The disadvantage is that the dies must be capable of withstanding the heavier blows without distortion or fracturing, and I suspect (can't prove it, yet) that the alloy steels needed for this were not developed until the very late 19th century - there was a good deal of experimentation with steel metallurgy ongoing around this time, much of it connected with armaments manufacture.

Now - if you take a piece of steel at forging heat, and whack it hard into a steel die, it helps to get it out again if it's tapered. If it's rectangular in cross-section, like a firmer chisel, and it jams into the die when drop-forged, you have an embarrassment. If it has a tapered, or trapezoidal, cross-section, like a bevel-edged chisel, it's much less likely to stick.

This is pure speculation, but could the b/e section we have become so familiar with have evolved simply to make manufacture by drop-forging easier?


----------



## Jacob (19 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":93bjkscb said:


> ....... I suspect (perhaps Richard T or others with smithing experience could comment?) that forming rectangular sections by hand and eye is easier than forming bevel-edged type sections. Any minor bevels (such as we have found on early 19th century firmers) could be better made by grinding......


Exactly the opposite IMHO. Try forming a rectangular cross section strip of plasticine by pressure. Very difficult, an (indeterminate) bevel section very easy. 
Similarly virtually all hand forged (or chipped stones etc) have free (ish) form and tapered sections. It's easier and hence cheaper.
Come industrialisation and the opposite applies, rectangular section easier and cheaper. The bevel becomes an extra process.


----------



## Racers (19 Feb 2013)

Hi,

Those chisels in Andy T pic are drop forged, the next step is in a die that cuts off the flash round the sides.

Jacob, how can a flat hammer and a flat anvil produce a bevelled chisel? 

Pete


----------



## Sheffield Tony (19 Feb 2013)

AndyT":39uuiix9 said:


> Thinking about this makes me realise that I really ought to get to Sheffield and visit Abbeydale Hamlet and the Ken Hawley Collection, where I suspect the answer would be easily visible!



I'm sure you'd enjoy the visit. When I went to Abbeydale on a school trip just a few years ago :wink:, you could watch people pouring moulten brass around - don't know if they do that anymore.. A quick look in the Ashley Iles pdf catalogue might be interesting first though; the forging of a carving gouge from a billet of O1 is shown and described step by step, ant there's little to it that would surprise a Victorian toolmaker, I think.


----------



## bugbear (19 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":30d6sk44 said:


> This is pure speculation, but could the b/e section we have become so familiar with have evolved simply to make manufacture by drop-forging easier?



Since B/E were still more expensive in the market, I don't quite buy that. But drop forging might make the (long invented and always desired) b/e style more affordable, possibly explaining the time gap between invention and common use.

Certainly the rapid changes in manufacturing processes around the end of the 19th cent are a very plausible explanation for the emergence of the b/e style.

BugBear


----------



## János (19 Feb 2013)

Hello,

Handforging a chisel from a piece of steel includes many steps. A simple, flat, splaying form is the easiest to forge: the wood carving chisels kept this archaic " fishtail" shape. Handforged tool blanks were/are tidied up by filing to shape before hardening, and not by grinding. Lamination requires much more attention from the maker than one piece solid steel forging does, the small difference in the achievable end hardness (1-2 HRC) is not enough to justify the much more labour and the increased costs of production.
A few useful books on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Tool-Making-Woodw ... 0964399989
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Modern-B ... cksmithing

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## AndyT (19 Feb 2013)

Tony - thanks for the tip about the Ashley Iles catalogue - not being a carver I had stupidly never bothered to look at it!

EDIT: If you start here, there are some brief videos to make it clearer: http://www.ashleyiles.co.uk/tool_production.html


----------



## bugbear (20 Feb 2013)

I've checked a couple of older catalogues.

Preston (1909) list 1" Firmer chisels at 8/- per doz, with Bevelled edge versions at 12/- per doz, both unhandled.

It is of note for the purposes of this discussion that they also list "long, thin paring chisels" that are *not* bevel edged, along with the b/e variant we might expect pattern makers to use (14/- and 20/- respectively, unhandled, per doz).

In 1935, Buck & Hickman have firmer at 9/- and bevel edged at 15/-, again unhandled and per doz.

So even if new production processes had made bevel edged feasible, it hadn't made them cheap.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (20 Feb 2013)

A possible example - although considerably more recent - per the approach to and reasoning behind tool buying from a trade standpoint came at the beginning of my apprenticeship when I was in need of tools/expanding upon the basic tool kit I'd been provided. Of limited means, when buying chisels I found it cheaper to buy firmers than their bevel edged counterparts, so managed to build up a full set in two thirds the time it would have taken, in spite of buying e.g. a chisel, screwdriver, saw, auger bits, etc. each week. The firmers were used for dovetailing, paring and light mortising and I still have that set, as well as another of bevel edged chisels I'd gathered during my second year. I still have both sets from Stanley's 5002 range and - blades being the same steel grade - they only differ from 5001 chisels in terms of handle colour and the fact 5002 blades weren't polished.

The above is a fairly typical example of how young tradesmen used their tool money and built their kits, buying via mail order catalogues or visiting tool dealers.

-----------


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Feb 2013)

Gaz - yes, when I was nobbut a nipper, we had one of those old-fashioned ironmonger's stores in my hometown where you asked the brown-coated chap behind the counter, and he'd disappear into the back for an age and reappear with two or three to choose from. If they didn't have one, they'd order it. Their stock was amazing, and they stocked both DIY and top quality tradesmen's tools. You could buy screws by the gross or the dozen. The shed-on-the-bypass killed them off in the 1990's. Ted Frost, in his book,'From Tree to Sea - The Building of a Wooden Steam Drifter' (his beautifully-illustrated memoirs of his apprentiseship in a Great Yarmouth boatyard just before WW1) tells of the tool company rep. calling weekly, and the lengths apprentices would go to to be 'unavailable' when he called to settle accounts - money didn't grow on trees then, either!

BB - the price difference is interesting. Leaving aside the possibility that a price was being set that manufacturers felt the market might bear, one possible explaination lies in the difficulty and extra work in grinding a b/e chisel. I remember reading recently (damned if I can recall where) that while Ashley Isles were developing their Mark II b/e chisels (with very fine edges) they had great difficulty in successfully grinding the bevels. The heat-treated steel had stresses locked into it that distorted the chisel as the surface metal was ground away, and the thinner the bevel, the worse the problem. Many prototypes ended up in the scrap before they evolved a grinding regime that countered the problem. Maybe our early 20th century manufacturers had the same problem, and the premium price reflected either a high scrap rate, or a more time-consuming grinding operation.

I agree with you that the price differential does not suggest that drop-forging reduced overall production costs, though. It's also quite possible to make a b/e chisel under the spring hammer with suitable dies, so perhaps the introduction of drop-forging does not explain the rise of the shape. Maybe it's down to somebody finding a solution to the grinding/distortion problem?


----------



## bugbear (21 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2mz1rjw1 said:


> Gaz - yes, when I was nobbut a nipper, we had one of those old-fashioned ironmonger's stores in my hometown where you asked the brown-coated chap behind the counter, and he'd disappear into the back for an age and reappear with two or three to choose from. If they didn't have one, they'd order it. Their stock was amazing, and they stocked both DIY and top quality tradesmen's tools. You could buy screws by the gross or the dozen. The shed-on-the-bypass killed them off in the 1990's. Ted Frost, in his book,'From Tree to Sea - The Building of a Wooden Steam Drifter' (his beautifully-illustrated memoirs of his apprentiseship in a Great Yarmouth boatyard just before WW1) tells of the tool company rep. calling weekly, and the lengths apprentices would go to to be 'unavailable' when he called to settle accounts - money didn't grow on trees then, either!



Thanks for that reference - I read the book a long time ago, and was trying to remember the title so I could read it again (library copy).



Cheshirechappie":2mz1rjw1 said:


> BB - the price difference is interesting. Leaving aside the possibility that a price was being set that manufacturers felt the market might bear, one possible explaination lies in the difficulty and extra work in grinding a b/e chisel. I remember reading recently (damned if I can recall where) that while Ashley Isles were developing their Mark II b/e chisels (with very fine edges) they had great difficulty in successfully grinding the bevels. The heat-treated steel had stresses locked into it that distorted the chisel as the surface metal was ground away, and the thinner the bevel, the worse the problem. Many prototypes ended up in the scrap before they evolved a grinding regime that countered the problem. Maybe our early 20th century manufacturers had the same problem, and the premium price reflected either a high scrap rate, or a more time-consuming grinding operation.
> 
> I agree with you that the price differential does not suggest that drop-forging reduced overall production costs, though. It's also quite possible to make a b/e chisel under the spring hammer with suitable dies, so perhaps the introduction of drop-forging does not explain the rise of the shape. Maybe it's down to somebody finding a solution to the grinding/distortion problem?



It's still plausible that drop forging bought the price down from a truly massive premium to a "mere" 50%. Perhaps prior to drop forging b/e chisels were so very expensive and difficult to make that it was commercially impractical. But that's all speculation and assertion.

The question (IMHO) remain open - to rephrase the OP's question - "when and why did b/e chisels become widely used"?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (21 Feb 2013)

bugbear":2j1xm131 said:


> .....
> The question (IMHO) remain open - to rephrase the OP's question - "when and why did b/e chisels become widely used"?
> 
> BugBear


The answer remains 'since the very beginning'. 
So far no one has shown that the old flared and/or bevelled hand forged chisel went out of use and was later re-introduced as the modern bevel, with some sort of gap. It's an odd idea anyway, why would there be a gap?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Feb 2013)

Jacob":ecvavfb7 said:


> bugbear":ecvavfb7 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...




So far, we have the Nova Zembla chisel of 1596, and we are all familiar with examples from the late 19th/early 20th century onwards. We have documentary evidence (contemporaneous literature, Sheffield List etc.) which suggest that the b/e chisel was rare or virtually unknown between thes two dates. Can you point us to examples of b/e chisels that can confidently be dated to earlier than about 1890 (other than Nova Zembla)?


----------



## Jacob (21 Feb 2013)

Prehistoric chisels
Bronze age chisel
Medieval chisel
They are all variously flared, bevelled etc
Then there's the Nova Zembla chisel of 1596. No reason to think it's anything but typical.

Documentary evidence - a catalogue of knives does not prove that the fork had not been invented. 
You can't really prove a negative from such evidence. 
It would be surprising if bevelled chisels stopped being made at some point and then were re-discovered. Why do you think this? There is no evidence for this odd idea.
Not that it hasn't been interesting trawling through all these snippets of information.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Feb 2013)

Jacob - can you show us some examples of b/e chisels that can confidently be dated to between about 1600 and about 1890?


----------



## Jacob (21 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":1gbbzgyh said:


> Jacob - can you show us some examples of b/e chisels that can confidently be dated to between about 1600 and about 1890?


Probably, if I google enough. Have a look yourself. 
You don't really think they stopped making them in 1600 do you? Why?

PS there are two in Moxon (plate 8 ) 1703. One a flared socket which would have a tapering edge (not a 'firmer' at any rate) the other being definitely bevelled. No doubt there were many other shapes and sizes.
In any case the Nova Zembla chisel is such an excellent looking item it seems extremely unlikely that similar items were not made continuously, with variations as technology changed of course. It's not that different from a modern bevel edge so I can't imagine that they went out of fashion and then came back in!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Feb 2013)

Jacob":25jlxw5w said:


> Cheshirechappie":25jlxw5w said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob - can you show us some examples of b/e chisels that can confidently be dated to between about 1600 and about 1890?
> ...



Jacob, the point of the entire thread is that the b/e chisel is rare or non-existant before about 1890 (though there are examples before about 1600). We don't know why, either. That is the point of the discussion.

We can't find any examples of b/e chisels made in the early 19th century, for example. You say we're wrong. Prove us wrong.


----------



## Jacob (21 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":29zx3ptw said:


> Jacob":29zx3ptw said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":29zx3ptw said:
> ...


I believe you when you say you can't find any examples etc. 
But that doesn't prove that they weren't being made and it seems so improbable that they went out of fashion and came back in again, which is what you seem to have concluded.
There is always a huge overlap in production techniques - for instance it seems that stone, iron and bronze tools have been found together , suggesting that in some places they were all used at the same period whenever that was - early iron age I guess.
Similarly in the 19C - old and new would be going on side by side.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Feb 2013)

OK. Prove that b/e chisels were being made during the 18th and early 19th centuries. So far, we can't find any examples. You say they must be there - prove it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (21 Feb 2013)

Shades of Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot?


----------



## GazPal (21 Feb 2013)

"Figure 4.—1703: Only the principal tools used in carpentry are listed by Moxon: the axe (A), adz (B), socket chisel (C), ripping chisel (D), drawknife (E), hookpin (F), bevel (G), plumb line (H), hammer (I), commander (K), crow (L), and jack (M). (Moxon, Mechanick Exercises ..., 1703. Library of Congress.)"

The ripping chisel (D) is one historic form of bevel edged chisel and one I knew of, but hadn't connected with bevel edged chisels. Although no longer commonly known as ripping chisels - the original differing with more common modern bent rippers - they were straight bladed & bevel edged with their name probably implying another intended use. Very probably utilised when creating and cleaning out acutely angular joints in framework.


----------



## Jacob (21 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":1fws2de7 said:


> OK. Prove that b/e chisels were being made during the 18th and early 19th centuries. So far, we can't find any examples. You say they must be there - prove it.


Occam's razor. Which means the simplest explanation should be preferred (as a rule, not guaranteed).
"So far, we can't find any examples" means only that you can't find any examples. It's a very big extrapolation to conclude that this proves they weren't there.
And see plate 4 from Moxon, more chisels, definitely not firmers, probably bevelled (or less than rectangular cross section at least).


----------



## bugbear (22 Feb 2013)

GazPal":38qhc34u said:


> "Figure 4.—1703: Only the principal tools used in carpentry are listed by Moxon: the axe (A), adz (B), socket chisel (C), ripping chisel (D), drawknife (E), hookpin (F), bevel (G), plumb line (H), hammer (I), commander (K), crow (L), and jack (M). (Moxon, Mechanick Exercises ..., 1703. Library of Congress.)"
> 
> The ripping chisel (D) is one historic form of bevel edged chisel and one I knew of, but hadn't connected with bevel edged chisels. Although no longer commonly known as ripping chisels - the original differing with more common modern bent rippers - they were straight bladed & bevel edged with their name probably implying another intended use. Very probably utilised when creating and cleaning out acutely angular joints in framework.



There may be some ambiguity on this;, and this may not a "chisel" in the meaning of the rest of this tread.

This book:

Lexicon Technicum: Or, An Universal English Dictionary Of Arts And Sciences:
Explaining Not Only the Terms of Art, But the Arts Themselves, Volume 2 (Google eBook, 1723)


says



the book":38qhc34u said:


> 7. The Ripping Chisel is a Socket Chiffel about an Inch broad, and having a blunt Edge with no Basil to it; its Use is to rip and tear two Pieces of Wood fanned together from one another, by forcing in the blunt Edge between the two Pieces.



(reference)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BWFE ... 22&f=false

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (22 Feb 2013)

Ok, let's try again. Can Jacob or anyone offer any *examples *from England in the late 18th or early 19th century where the _ordinary kit of tools for a tradesman_ included bevel edged chisels, or where the prices in a catalogue suggest that bevel edge chisels were the _economical first choice_, not an expensive special?

[And please let's remember that the illustrations in Moxon are unreliable, having been copied from the French book 'Principes de l'Architecture' by Felibien, published in 1676 - http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50597k - that's why the picture of a plough plane shows the unfamiliar continental style which does not match the descriptions. Here's Felibien's page with the 'ciseaux' and 'fermoirs' on: (btw, chisel A is a specialist plane maker's tool!)






the 'rabots'






and the 'scies' - I think the copying is pretty obvious.]








So come on guys, let's make this thread a gathering together of evidence, not just speculation.


----------



## János (22 Feb 2013)

Hello,

Only very few examples of archaic woodworking hand tools have survived to the present day, so this debate is fully speculative and mostly pointless and academic. Based on the experience and opinion of the blacksmiths of our era, forging a bevel-edged chisel reqiures much more attention and skill than a simpler, but quite adequate one with trapezoidal cross section. The main advantage of a bevel-edge chisel is comfort: the blade could be much lighter, and the "flatter profile" of the blade, and the obtuse angle of the sides make for a more comfortable grip.





These are old enough chisels, and they are not bevel edged... but trapezoidal, and taperd "fishtaillike".

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Jacob (22 Feb 2013)

AndyT":12basecv said:


> Ok, let's try again. Can Jacob or anyone offer any *examples *from England in the late 18th or early 19th century where the _ordinary kit of tools for a tradesman_ included bevel edged chisels, or where the prices in a catalogue suggest that bevel edge chisels were the _economical first choice_, not an expensive special?.....


No I can't. But I wouldn't expect them to be _economical first choice_ anyway. But that's not the issue. I just doubt the hypothesis of this thread; that bevel edge chisels such as the Nova Zembla example were rare, stopped being made and were rediscovered at a later date. Or that there was a period when only firmer chisels were made.


> So come on guys, let's make this thread a gathering together of evidence, not just speculation.


Yes show us the evidence for the above! Then explain it!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Feb 2013)

Jacob":1t0y3jg4 said:


> AndyT":1t0y3jg4 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, let's try again. Can Jacob or anyone offer any *examples *from England in the late 18th or early 19th century where the _ordinary kit of tools for a tradesman_ included bevel edged chisels, or where the prices in a catalogue suggest that bevel edge chisels were the _economical first choice_, not an expensive special?.....
> ...




Jacob - do you struggle to understand basic English, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

Here's the original question again. It seems that bevel-edged chisels, examples of which that can be confidently dated to the very late 19th century and later, are quite commonly available on the secondhand market. However, examples of b/e chisels that can be dated confidently to before the late 19th century are absent from the secondhand market. There are examples dating to the late 16th century, but between that date and the late 19th, they seem to disappear. Can anybody find any examples of b/e chisels that can confidently be dated to between the 17th and late 19th century? Can anybody explain why they suddenly became commoner around the late 19th/early 20th centuries?

So far, it seems that they disappear from the literature, too. The one example that Gaz turned up is apparently more a form of froe than a chisel (which is another question - why that shape for use as a wood splitter?).

So far, a lot of research, some speculation, but no answers. And no examples of 18th/early to mid 19th century b/e chisels, either.


----------



## Jacob (22 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":1ivlh455 said:


> ............. Can anybody find any examples of b/e chisels that can confidently be dated to between the 17th and late 19th century?


Do you have examples of firmer chisels which can confidently be dated to between the 17th and late 19th century, from collections which don't include bevel edged chisels?


> Can anybody explain why they suddenly became commoner around the late 19th/early 20th centuries?


All these things becomes commoner, as we approach modern times and increased industrial activity. Older examples are lost, wear out etc. It's a self evident truth


> So far, it seems that they disappear from the literature, too.


You mean they were in earlier literature but not later?


> The one example that Gaz turned up is apparently more a form of froe than a chisel (which is another question - why that shape for use as a wood splitter?).


I turned it up, if you look back. It's clearly a bevel edged chisel. So is the Nova Zembla example. There seem to be no simple firmer chisels on either page. Had they disappeared too or were awaiting invention? So far, wild speculation.
Don't worry I'm not going to post again in this thread. There seems to be zero _positive_ evidence of the mysterious bevel edge gap, merely a severe lack of evidence of continuity (of modern firmer chisels too). 
I suspect that modern chisels were all developed at approx. the same time (for any particular manufacturer) as they all had antecedents, would have been in demand and are technically very simple.
Let me know when you find something positive!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Feb 2013)

Oh, I give up!

Jacob - if you read back through this thread, you will find answers to all those questions.


----------



## Harbo (22 Feb 2013)

Heres some Egyptian Chisels:






Making things like this:










And here's some passed down through the family - my Great Grandfather was a wheelwright in the 1850's






Not a bevel edge in sight!

Rod


----------



## Jacob (22 Feb 2013)

Harbo":e7jexywq said:


> .....
> And here's some passed down through the family - my Great Grandfather was a wheelwright in the 1850's
> ....
> Not a bevel edge in sight!
> ...


A wheelwright wouldn't have much use for a bevel edge chisel. They were definitely around in the 1850s, which kinda proves my point; just cos you can't see them doesn't mean they weren't around.
Another point of course is that the bulk of woodwork esp in early 19C would be large scale industrial - ships, transport, etc and the heavier tools would be very much in demand and hence more common. But they were still making fine furniture and it's so unlikely that they would somehow have 'forgotten' about BE chisels.


----------



## GazPal (22 Feb 2013)

We had some bevel edged chisels dating from around 1820 among my great great great grandfather's kit, but the bevel edges only travelled approx 2" up the blade before reverting to firmer cross-section.

------------

In terms of ye olde worlde ripping chisels being unbevelled? Bevel edged chisels were nicknamed "ripping chisels" because they can be used sideways - remember side bevels tend to be blunt - to cleave/rip small billets and create plugs for skirting and architrave fixes. It's an alternative use and name for the same tool.


----------



## Jacob (23 Feb 2013)

The question seems to be being interpreted as "when was the first appearance of a modern BE chisel in a catalogue" which should be easy enough to answer.
Checked my catalogues but 2012 (Axminster) is the best I could do but I'm sure they were around a lot earlier.

Another problem is in the nature of the material. Potttery, glass, gold, silver all survive really well but iron rusts. Thin iron rusts faster. Old iron tools are likely to be recycled and not found abandoned, or hidden and hoarded like valuables.


----------



## Corneel (23 Feb 2013)

Just soem examples, there is much more available on firmer chisels in the 19th century:

We have of course the Seaton chest, an almost complete cabinet makers chest from 1797. Only firmers in this chest. 

Isn't there the Smiths Keys, 1817, the illustrated guide of everything Sheffield made? Does anyone know what chisels are in that guide?

Nicholson in Mechaniks comapanion, 1850, describes the chisel with a slight taper from the edge towards the handle and a larger taper on the sides from the face to the back. No bevel edged chisels in his book. http://shop.toolemera.com/PdfSamples/mechcompsample.pdf

I have two Dutch sources from the 19th century (sorry not on the Internet so I can't give links, you'll have to believe me :shock: ), without bevel edged chisels, only firmer types.

So, it indeed looks like bevel edge chisels went out of fashion somewhere in the 17th or 18th century. But it is very difficult to prove something didn't exist, while it is much easier the other way around when you find a specimen.


----------



## GazPal (24 Feb 2013)

I think it would be interesting to uncover when Far Eastern carpenters came to adopt bevel edged chisels within their tool selection, as parallels can be drawn between Far & Middle Eastern and Western tool developments due to trade and migration. Japanese chisels particularly have a tendency to adhere rigidly to traditional forms - with many traditions originating in mainland Asia - and tools have changed very little over the centuries. 






"Chisel (nomi), steel / wood, maker unknown, Japan, 1875-1892" 

Japanese bevel edged chisels (Nomi) were used in conjunction with firmer chisels (Usu-nomi), but here is a link to a few other chisel types. 

http://dougukan.jp/contents-en/modules/ ... .php?id=27 

Reasoning based on literature is perfectly fine, BUT not many craftsmen wrote of their methods or tooling and whilst Nicholson, Moxon, Rubo, et al may have many answers, they were among a privileged few with access to printers and do not have all of the answers. Being a writer doesn't make him/her of any particular use as a craftsman/woman. If Moxon's diagrams are deemed ambiguous/inaccurate (Often typically artist's impressions involving scant knowledge of the subject matter) it's not too unreasonable to doubt the efficacy of his and other's information, without further investigation and experimentation. 

Iron shod Roman hand planes and Egyptian dovetails were thought not to exist until their discovery and yet we still insist our predecessors somehow lacked our capability to develop and produce. Yes, they lacked a number of technological resources, but far more of their knowledge has been lost through the passage of time than we may ever be capable of re-discovering. An item's absence does not mean it did not exist. It simply means it is not present and may somehow have been lost at some point in the past. 

Furthermore, the lack of bevel edged chisels within the Seaton chest does not disprove their existence. The reason being it holds an incomplete inventory of original tools and includes replacement items. It could very well have been his secondary kit and his primary toolkit may have been used up or disposed of outside his descending family circle. Useful tools tend to be used up, re-cycled or adapted into other tools. Craftsmen tend to be a resourceful lot and will tend to buy or adapt tooling to suit particular tasks. Many adapt tooling to fit our hands, as well as certain tasks. I feel we should be willing to make such adaptations instead of elevating certain tools to such a status where we find ourselves the ones needing to adapt, or complaining an otherwise perfectly suitable tool's handle doesn't fit and giving this as a reason for disposal or lack of use. 

In short, if firmer chisels were the only type available to me I would adapt a few to possess extra bevels for dovetailing.


----------



## Jacob (24 Feb 2013)

Another question is what exactly is the definition of a bevel edge. 
I'd say this has bevel edges (albeit rounded) and bevel edges have been around from the year dot (as I said at the start of this thread). and in the east too.




I'd also repeat that IMHO it is extremely improbable that something so useful and widely known* should suddenly have gone out of fashion, and then been brought back in again, at a time when woodwork manufacturing was at it's height in Britain.

*PS and so easy to produce, by forging, grinding, filing, casting etc.


----------



## bugbear (24 Feb 2013)

I've checked my copy of Goodman "The History of Woodworking Tools" and he doesn't even mention bevel edged chisels. I think he regards it as a very minor variation (in his terms)

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (24 Feb 2013)

Jacob":3c7ftf11 said:


> I'd also repeat that IMHO it is extremely improbable that something so useful and widely known* should suddenly have gone out of fashion, and then been brought back in again, at a time when woodwork manufacturing was at it's height in Britain.



One thing for sure, they did go out of fashion. I have no idea why. But you just don't find them in the 19th century books and catalogues, until they suddenly reappeared again at the end of the century. It's weird indeed. Some were still probably made for special purposes. But the mainstream chisel for sale was a firmer type.


----------



## bugbear (27 Feb 2013)

As I continue to dig through time I can report that Nicholson "Mechanics Companion" 1831 makes no mention of bevel edged chisels, nor does Young "Every Man his Own Mechanic" (my copy published 1891, first published 1882).

Both volumes list and illustrate types of chisel, so the omission might be deemed "explicit".

Edit; Apologies to Andy T who had already cited Young's book.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (27 Feb 2013)

So when did they first re-appear? That's what we are all dying to hear.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Feb 2013)

Jacob":3n1a0j2h said:


> So when did they first re-appear? That's what we are all dying to hear.




Jacob - re-read the thread, and you will have your answer. It is, after all, what the entire thread is about.


----------



## bugbear (28 Feb 2013)

Hasluck's mega-tome, (1903) shows the Marples catalogue shot, including b/e.

I had a little more luck in George Ellis' "Modern Practical Joinery" (1908).

Ellis differentiates by mode of use, and describes a paring chisel as one used in a continuous motion. He says that "...the better forms have bevelled edges".

Which rather implies the existence of non bevel edged paring chisels, a breed long gone. So I would infer that Ellis was writing in a transition period.

Ellis describes firmers chisels as general purpose tools, shorter, and strong enough to be struck with a mallet. These are not bevel edged.

BugBear


----------



## Richard T (28 Feb 2013)

When chopping out a dovetail or any joint/mortise/situation where the corner that the chisel needs to get in to is less than 90 degrees, the corner of the chisel needs to be less too. I guess such work has been going on for rather longer than the above mentioned catalogues seem to provide chisels for.

Does this mean that once upon a time all chisels were made and sold as firmers - wrought iron with a welded on steel cutting plate and that the user was expected to file down the corners (and grind the last bit) himself if he wanted a bevelled edge job? 

Seems too simple to be true but maybe that's just what they _want_ us to think ..... 8-[


----------



## AndyT (28 Feb 2013)

We're a long way off the original question, but picking up BB's comment about paring chisels, I'll add another crumb of evidence to the pile.

As far as I know, what distinguishes a paring chisel is principally its length. The greater length means that you can get at surfaces such as a housing on a wide board and also means that you can use pressure from your shoulder to push harder. A good example of this is in plane making where I have read that long paring chisels were used to open up the big mortice which is the mouth. (The wonderful video of the old Swiss toolmakers shows this being done.)

I think a plane maker would prefer a fairly robust tool for doing that job, where a cabinet maker might like something slimmer and lighter to handle - ie a bevel edge paring chisel.

As evidence that square edged paring chisels were made, here's one by Marsden Brothers alongside an ordinary bench firmer to show the difference in size. Ignore the wonky handle; it was like that when I bought it - I assume it's not original.


----------



## Racers (28 Feb 2013)

Hi, Chaps

Here are my mix of bevel and non bevel paring chisels in the middle box.






Pete


----------



## Richard T (28 Feb 2013)

Ward and Pane straight sided paring chisel.






Tapering down to the end






Very similar to the one that Richard Arnold posted recently but I would think a good hundred years later. 

It needs rehandling as someone has ignored it's paring lines and bashed it to pineapple. :-x


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Feb 2013)

Wells and Hooper in 'Modern Cabinet Work' (3rd edition, 1922) state on page 12, "Chisels - For all ordinary purposes a firmer chisel is used. As it's name denotes, it is shorter, thicker and so firmer than the long paring chisel, which generally has a bevelled edge." 

Interestingly, they do not mention the b/e firmer at all, though we know from earlier posts in this thread that they were about by this time.

---------

To answer RichardT's point about firmers being used to get into tight corners, the 19th century firmer was quite a subtle shape. There is a post earlier in the thread (by AndyT I think) referencing a blog post by Adam Cherubini, who has studied early tool use extensively. He noted that firmers of that era were not just thin in the blade, but tapered outwards in width from shoulder to cutting edge. The sides were also not quite square to the flat face, but sloped - not enough to be called a bevelled edge, but offering to become one. Each of these features (thin, taper in width, slight slope to sides) would each help with clearance, and the cumulative total of all three features would help quite a bit. It could well be that with a set of such firmers, the craftsman could work such features as dovetails quite acceptably without recourse to bevelling his edges.

(After reading Andy's post, I checked my mid-to-late 19th century thin paring chisel, and the edges do taper inwards a bit. As far as I could measure, one side is at 4 degrees, and the other at 5 degrees. It might be worth putting a small square to your paring chisel, and see if it does the same. Andy - does your Marsden Brothers chisel do likewise? What about yours, Pete?)

Going even earlier, back to the 18th century, the taper in width of firmer chisels was even more pronounced than in the 19th. That would give a cutting edge corner vulnerable to damage, but even more clearance than later firmers.

---------

The square-edged (well, nominally square-edged) paring chisel seems to crop up a lot during the 19th century at least. We seem to have several examples between us. However, as BugBear suggests above, they seem to disappear around the late 19th/early 20th century. This does seem to be the transitional period between thin, square-edged paring chisel, and slightly thicker but bevelled-edged paring chisel. The b/e firmer seems to become more common around the same time, and the square-edged firmer becomes thicker with sides genuinely square to the flat face.

At any rate, that's what the evidence seems to suggest. Given the closeness between UK and North American practice, it may well be that the same happened there at the same time, and Corneel's researches earlier in the thread suggest that much the same happened in Europe, though the exact dates are not quite so clear (yet!).

Many thanks for all the research and input, chaps. A minor by-way of tool history, but an interesting one nonetheless.


----------



## bugbear (1 Mar 2013)

Cheshirechappie":djrxt5bj said:


> Wells and Hooper in 'Modern Cabinet Work' (3rd edition, 1922) state on page 12, "Chisels - For all ordinary purposes a firmer chisel is used. As it's name denotes, it is shorter, thicker and so firmer than the long paring chisel, which generally has a bevelled edge."
> 
> Interestingly, they do not mention the b/e firmer at all, though we know from earlier posts in this thread that they were about by this time.



Indeed - this is why it's no use relying on a single source, be it oral, written, or archaeological. One must draw on all possible sources of information if one wishes to get the closest approximation to truth.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (1 Mar 2013)

Just had a quick look at my Sorby paring chisels. And indeed, taper in length and taper in thickness. So I am happy 8) 
And I was allready very happy with these. 

No idea how old they are though. On a previous thread someone guessed they were late 19th century or so.

BTW, I think an oldfashioned firmer shape chisel like this is better to get into tight corners then most bevel edged chisel with very thick lands.


----------



## János (6 Mar 2013)

Hello,

As all of you know, there is a long thread about chisel backs on this forum. flattening-chisel-backs-with-lapping-film-t68506.html
In this, one side of the dialogue says that, in carpentry/joinery/cabinet making/pattern making handwork, there is no real and well grounded need for flat/plane backed "paring" chisels, as the work can be accomplished just as well and effectively with double bevel chisels and/or slightly "up bent" irons.

This debate reminded me to my readings about woodworking tool history. As far as we know it now, much of the now so familiar woodworking hand tools was invented and developed in Europe. 

The other regions of Earth developed their own woodworking tools. But the European tools were much more better in concept, and the technology was "exported" and keenly adopted all over the world. 

This process of the spread of European technology is reasonably well documented. 

The Japanese, for example, learned the manufacture and use of handplanes and handsaws from the Portugals, after the arrival of Pinto, in 1541. 

We are fortunate enough to have surviving written documents, preserved in Japanese libraries and archives, about the building and construction of temples and palaces, and the depictions of workers and crafts people. The Japanese craftsmen built very large wooden structures, to high standards with a minimal array or hand tools: axes, hatchets, adzes, knives, and chisels. No handplanes, no handsaws. It was not impossible, but required extremely large amounts of human labour: the construction of Todai-ji temple (in 752) required 50.000 carpenters.

The chisels in use at the time were based on Chinese/Korean patterns: slightly bent in the length, double bevelled, and splaying. Just like a carver. So, the joints were not chiselled in the modern meaning of the word, but carved out.

The adoption of Potuguese and Dutch methods and woodworking handtools resulted in a "revolution", and wooden architecture aquired a dominant position in Japan. The woodworking tools we admire today are close relatives of our own.

Perhaps tool development is a question of balance between the craftsmen's innate tendency for conservatism and lazyness, and the need for more working comfort, safety, and efficiency.

A bevel edged chisel is not a major step forward, so to speak.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Jacob (6 Mar 2013)

János":3nogufnq said:


> ............So, the joints were not chiselled in the modern meaning of the word, but carved out.......


Interesting post.
But chiselling IS carving. It's not another thing!* There is no "modern" chiselling.

*Bishop Joseph Butler; "Everything is what it is, and not another thing"


----------



## János (6 Mar 2013)

Dear Jacob,

As far as I see things, in the context of carpentry/joinery/cabinet making/pattern making, the term _"chiselling" has a specific, and quite narrow meaning._ And in this meaning "carving" is not included at all. As this latter term is _used to describe the distinct work of shaping wood to create sculptural forms and shapes _with cutting tools, _most frequently with specialised knives or specialised carving tools_. Yes, cutting is involved in both, but that is all they have in common. Painting the Sistine Chapel was "painting", and whitewashing your kitchen is "painting" too, but nevertheless, not the same.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Jacob (6 Mar 2013)

Hi Janos

Semantics can be a slippery slope to infinite nit-picking but I'll risk it. :shock: 
Chiselling means using a chisel (for it's designed purpose). A very wide meaning in fact, considering the variety of chisels.
The act of paring off a bit of wood with a chisel is much the same if done by a carver or a joiner. Neither the wood nor the chisel know the difference! Carvers use ordinary chisels if they want to. This doesn't mean they've stopped carving at that point. Carvers "pare", so do woodworkers.


----------



## János (6 Mar 2013)

Dear Jacob,

In my previous post, I defined very precisely and strictly what I mean by „chiselling” in this specific discourse and context. This is the standard and accepted practice in scientific, and in meaningful everyday discourse as well. You simply ignored the definition...

As you know it very well, the variety of chisels for structural work in carpentry/joinery/cabinet making/pattern making is limited: mortice chisels, general purpose flat chisels, flat paring chisels, skews (in fact a variant of flat paring chisels), and inchanel gouges. _And the manner (and purpose) of utilization of these differs from the standard working practice of carvers_, who were/are recognized as practitioners of a different craft requiring many different skills.

Every cutting tool (including abrasives) is edge tool, and all of them work on the common principle of the wedge. So everybody, using these means to work wood, is just “carvin’ away”… :? 

Have a nice day, :wink: 

János


----------



## Jacob (6 Mar 2013)

János":3fza8dmc said:


> .......
> 
> Every cutting tool (including abrasives) is edge tool, and all of them work on the common principle of the wedge. So everybody, using these means to work wood, is just “carvin’ away”… :? ......


Yes. They are all carving away, but differently and often without clear boundaries. If you define 'chiselling' in your own particular way, however precisely, then you can draw your own particular conclusions, but they may be different from mine.


----------



## GazPal (6 Mar 2013)

I'll see if I can post images of a few bevel edged chisels I have among the herd.


----------



## János (6 Mar 2013)

Jacob":2m9i3bom said:


> János":2m9i3bom said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



Differently? :shock: 

I have defined "Chiseling" strictly, and shared the definition with you... I could not have done more. 

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Jacob (6 Mar 2013)

János":1wk3oivj said:


> Jacob":1wk3oivj said:
> 
> 
> > János":1wk3oivj said:
> ...


Er, you haven't quite. You said "chiselling" has a specific, and quite narrow meaning" but you didn't say what this was. 
For me "chiselling" means using a chisel (as a chisel). You may not know this Janos but it also means (in slang) "committing petty fraud, cheating, etc" but I don't know why.


----------



## János (6 Mar 2013)

Dear Jacob,

My definition has been given here:



> Dear Jacob,
> 
> As far as I see things, in the context of carpentry/joinery/cabinet making/pattern making, the term _"chiselling" has a specific, and quite narrow meaning._ And in this meaning "carving" is not included at all. As this latter term is _used to describe the distinct work of shaping wood to create sculptural forms and shapes_ with cutting tools, _most frequently with specialised knives or specialised carving tools_.



That means, in the "common parlance": any kind of wood cutting work, done by a carpenter, joiner, cabinet maker, or pattern maker in the course of production, with the aid of the standard chisels of his trade, _except _the work done to create sculptural forms and shapes, and possibly with the help of specialised carving tools.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## János (7 Mar 2013)

Hello,

Here is part of a page from an 1930's joinery book, illustrating chisels of the trade:





No bevel edges.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## AndyT (7 Mar 2013)

János":2jnsb0pq said:


> Hello,
> 
> Here is part of a page from an 1930's *joinery* book, illustrating chisels of the trade:
> 
> ...



Thanks Janos - I've not read back all of this thread to check if this point has been made already or not, but you've reminded me to say that bevel-edged chisels would not have been needed by the ordinary *joiner* (or carpenter) so not seeing them in a book on joinery is no surprise. They were (I suggest) a more specialist tool for bench work by the cabinet maker or pattern maker.
Given that this site covers the whole span of woodwork - from structural timbers through to tiny carving - it can be easy to lose sight of the different tool requirements of the various divisions of woodwork when looking for evidence of past usage.

The distinction is even less clear-cut nowadays, with bevel-edge chisels being the default sort offered as a general purpose tool for all trades - which is where we came in!


----------



## János (8 Mar 2013)

Hello,

I have found these in a book on the history of building engineering.










The carpenter uses a wide flat chisel.

The flat chisel on the second image has a distinct fishtail shape. According to the German text, the chisel is from the XVth century.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## GazPal (8 Mar 2013)

A Japanese fishtailed chisel.





So much relies upon the first hand knowledge of historical writer and artist when attempting to decypher their offerings, as such evidence is often via a secondary and not primary source. Omission of writings or drawings describing the bevel edged chisel neither proves or disproves it's historical existence, but...... 

I still think due consideration needs to be given in terms of the use of bevel edged chisels in the Far East and especially regarding Japan. Their practice was to minimise the use of iron and steel due to iron ore's comparative rarity. They were and are sticklers for tradition, plus use both bevel edged and firmer chisels.


----------

