# Narex Chisels- Mini review



## LuptonM (2 Jan 2011)

Firstly I have no idea how to cut mortices but I bought these with the intention to learn how to. (my mum wants me to make her a table!!!!!- cheeky pipper :lol: )







The three here are 6mm, 10mm and 14mm- the 14mm will probably be used for large items such as very sturdy tables

One thing that I noticed straight out of the box is that they are HUGE!!!!!

The chisels come cleanly ground and are ready for honing- possibly the bottom is slightly concave- not sure if this is necessary for mortice chisels though

Anyway I've taken some measurements here to show their actual sizes (measured the widest point-the bottom surface)- it was a little tricky since they are slightly trapezoid 

The 10mm chisel




The 14mm chisel




The 6mm chisel with normal callipers 





I would have seem to have lost the image where I measured the 6mm chisel with digital callipers- it was about 5.2mm-5.3mm if I remember- I used the analogue callipers to show that my digital one was not out of sync in case ppl wanted to raise the fact that the 6mm chisels is surprisingly smaller than stated

Another thing I noticed about them is that they don't seem very heavy- I would have thought that mortice chisels should be blade heavy but these do not seem so. Personally I am not keen on the handles and think that they are too long and I am not sure on the shape either- however don't take this a gospel since I am not experienced in hand mortising 

I think that these are the cheapest mortice chisels on the market currently- roughly £14 each. The other takings are probably more than double in price

I might attempt some-when to try them out properly (me banging away indoors scares the dogs so I'll have to find somewhere appropriate outside). This will also lead me onto another mini review of the Veritas marking gauge and mortice attachment. You will also be able to laugh at my mortice attempt as well- either that or it'll make you feel better about yourself


----------



## woodbloke (2 Jan 2011)

I tested some for Matthew a while back...they're really excellent. The first mm or so of the steel is quite 'mushy' (which is normal) but once you get into the good stuff you'll find they can chop through anything. The handles look much improved to the ones I tested for Matt - Rob


----------



## LuptonM (2 Jan 2011)

There are two types or narex mortice chisels available from workshopheaven. These are the ones that were released with the cabinetmakers chisels (the newer ones). I just feel the handles need to be more elliptical- maybe like them old pig sticker chisels.
I'll have ago at making some mortices in some scrap some-when and I'll be able to better evaluate how I get along with them


----------



## Alf (2 Jan 2011)

Just the ticket, Marc. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## jimi43 (5 Jan 2011)

Thanks for the review Marc...not least because you reminded me I still have one of Matt's chisels on the shelf in a tube ready to post back him!  

Interesting comment there Rob....I am not used to "mush" at the front end of edge tools...perhaps because most of mine lost their mush about a century ago.... :mrgreen: 

I found they cut well...I just did a little mortice which turned out remarkably accurate and fitted together with a little tenon that I made with a Japanese saw.....I had the 8mm one:











After marking out with some less up-to-date technology....






.,.the edge cut very cleanly....






...and didn't really need much clean-up....






Not an exhaustive test but quite an impressive tool for the price way better value than comparable priced product on the market.

I look forward to your shavings Marc...while I get out and chip a few more holes before returning my sample!  

Jim


----------



## matthewwh (7 Jan 2011)

Hi Marc,

Thank you for your excellent review. 

There should be a very slight taper in the width of the blades from front to back so you will get different width measurements at different points up the blade. Its barely noticable, maybe half a mm to a mm over the entire length, but with that and the slight taper on the sides it's enough to prevent them from behaving like a nail and sticking in the timber. 

The width of mortice chisels seems to attract a lot of interest but I'm not sure why. Normal practice is to select a chisel of approximately the right width (say a 6mm if you are using 18mm material and sticking to the rule of thirds) then use the tip of the chisel itself as the width measurement for everything - setting the gauges, laying out the mortice, determining the width of the tenon etc. This way you leave the smallest possible number of opportunities for error to creep into your work.


----------



## TobyB (12 Jan 2011)

Just to add to what's already been said - I now have a set and they are fantastic.

I did have some CI Falls examples that Matthew stocked briefly - but their size and grind was a bit off. Did work OK. Matthew let me try a sample of each handle version he stocks - and I do like the larger faceted handles. He swapped the CI's for a full set of Narex's. They work wonderfully - I couldn't resist wielding the enormous 16 mm beast - and with a hard bit of maple scrap chopped out a 5 cm long, parallel-sided mortice in less than 2 minutes. I'd never have managed that with bench chisels.

Terrific tools, very reasonably priced and affordable compared to something like LN's ... and yet more great service from Matthew at Workshop Heaven


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":2disxlq2 said:


> The first mm or so of the steel is quite 'mushy' (which is normal) but once you get into the good stuff you'll find they can chop through anything.



It's quite common for the first mm of an edge tool to be unrepresentative; if the edge has been ground before heat treament, it's VERY difficult to heat treat a non uniform tool in a uniform manner.

If the bevel is ground after heat treatment, there's ample opportunity to over heat the tip.

IIRC Japanese chisels are commonly absurdly hard and brittle at the tip when new. Odate speaks of "taming" a new chisel.

Moral - judgement of a brand new edge tool should be cautious.

BugBear


----------



## Newbie_Neil (25 Nov 2011)

Hi Woodbloke and BugBear,



woodbloke":3g4ip7ti said:


> The first mm or so of the steel is quite 'mushy' (which is normal) but once you get into the good stuff you'll find they can chop through anything.





bugbear":3g4ip7ti said:


> It's quite common for the first mm of an edge tool to be unrepresentative; if the edge has been ground before heat treament, it's VERY difficult to heat treat a non uniform tool in a uniform manner. If the bevel is ground after heat treatment, there's ample opportunity to over heat the tip. IIRC Japanese chisels are commonly absurdly hard and brittle at the tip when new. Odate speaks of "taming" a new chisel. Moral - judgement of a brand new edge tool should be cautious. BugBear



I'm really glad that I saw your comments, as I was concerned about my new Narex chisels. I'll just have to use them some more!!

Thanks,
Neil


----------



## TobyB (25 Nov 2011)

Just to update - one of my set also needed a mm or so grinding off after it chipped ... but that was a one-off ... I have chopped out a lot of wood with these, and the steel, the handles and all are great - good tools at a sensible price ... wondering if the cabinet-makers bevel-edged will be as good ...


----------



## woodbloke (26 Nov 2011)

TobyB":2134fhkh said:


> I did have some CI Falls examples that Matthew stocked briefly - but their size and grind was *a bit off*.


That has to be the understatement of the year :lol:...Matt let me have a look at some a while back and whist the quality of the steel was excellent, the chisel surfaces had much in common with a ploughed field. In fact, a field would have been a tad smoother - Rob


----------



## matthewwh (27 Nov 2011)

The C.I. Falls probably wouldn't win any beauty contests, but they take one heck of an edge and it's useful to have a range for people that like to give their tools a bit more welly. I don't regret switching to Narex for a moment though, and a little bird tells me that they will shortly be adding a range of chunky firmer chisels for bigger rougher work. 

In the meantime I have been tinkering with the 8116 cabinetmakers range and asked them to put a smaller version of the same handle on the 26mm and below. It's quite a subtle change but there is a noticable improvement in the balance and feel of the smaller sizes. The new ones will become standard when our new website launches on the 5th of December (assuming all of the necessary stars are in alignment) with the larger handles available on request for those with big paws.

Until then if you put 'Large handles please' or 'Small handles please' in the shipping comments box we will send them out as requested.


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

They are a bit light weight these chisels - traditionally could be called "sash mortice" chisels as used for the small (but deep) mortices for glazing bars. The deep bladed trad "oval bolster" type will do a much better job on longer mortices such as table apron/leg joint or door stiles etc.
They should have rounded bevels. I notice that one of them pictured above is hideously hollow ground - really not good for a mortice chisel as simply too fragile for normal use i.e. being hit hard with mallet.
Above 1/2" I would have thought those flimsy looking handles wouldn't be up to the bashing.
A fantasy woodworker :roll: recently said somewhere that if you have to hit a chisel with a mallet then it's not sharp enough. Complete rollox! :lol:


----------



## condeesteso (29 Nov 2011)

What was actually said was this, (a significant mis-quote above)
"If you need to hit a chisel hard enough to damage a wooden handle then you haven't sharpened it properly."
Hope this isn't turning into another sharpening thread.

I have seen Jim's* Narex and was impressed with the precision of grinding in particular - they look very good users... I've seen prettier but that isn't the point with mortice chisels I suppose.
(*and when I say Jim's of course I mean Matthew's)


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

matthewwh":bc0u925t said:


> .......
> The width of mortice chisels seems to attract a lot of interest but I'm not sure why.


For me because for many purposes the MT width fits the design, so a window frame with a 1/2" land (waddyacallit) wants a 1/2" M&T as anything else will leave a funny little shoulder detail to sort out. Similarly with many other (not all) designs such as panelling etc.
I checked my old british mortice chisels and they are precisely (in woodworking terms) 1/4, 5/16, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8 inch which gives 6.4, 7.9, 9.5, 12.7, 15.9, mm to nearest 0.1mm. Hence the 10mm Narex would pass as a 3/8" but the other widths are a bit mysterious and useless, for me at least.


> Normal practice...............etc


Normal practice is to assume the above imperial sizes and set your gauge to a scale, not the chisel, not least because it is surprisingly difficult to get the two points to line up consistently with the edge and as BB points out this part of the edge may be wrong anyway. 
Then the chisel (if properly sized) will fit. 

NB condeesteso, it was somebody else's quote I had in mind, but I would say that especially for the larger sizes you need to hit a mortice chisel as hard as you can. If this breaks the handle it's the handle's fault! :lol:


----------



## condeesteso (29 Nov 2011)

apologies then, of course most chisels must withstand the mallet. Anyway, these Narex most certainly can.


----------



## bugbear (29 Nov 2011)

Jacob":cm0405vy said:


> matthewwh":cm0405vy said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



I can see the (exact) width of a mortise mattering only if the tenon is barefaced on both sides; in general, if you're actually marking and cutting a tenon, you simply mark and cut the tenon to the width of the mortise.

However, it may well be important that your (various) mortice chisels match your (various) plough plane blades, other wise various joint become tedious (e.g. breadboard ends, with a mortise IN a groove).

In the modern era of factory supplied planed stock (or plywood), I suppose exact sizeing becomes more important.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

bugbear":zzioly3k said:


> .....
> I can see the (exact) width of a mortise mattering only if the tenon is barefaced on both sides;


Have a look at a window M&T


> in general, if you're actually marking and cutting a tenon, you simply mark and cut the tenon to the width of the mortise.


No, you cut them both, independently, to the marks from the marking gauge.


> However, it may well be important that your (various) mortice chisels match your (various) plough plane blades, other wise various joint become tedious (e.g. breadboard ends, with a mortise IN a groove).
> 
> In the modern era of factory supplied planed stock (or plywood), I suppose exact sizeing becomes more important.
> 
> BugBear


It also mattered in the past.


----------



## bugbear (29 Nov 2011)

Jacob":26k85h4z said:


> bugbear":26k85h4z said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Information gratefully recieved - which particular joint are you referrring to?



> > in general, if you're actually marking and cutting a tenon, you simply mark and cut the tenon to the width of the mortise.
> 
> 
> No, you cut them both, independently, to the marks from the marking gauge.



Yebbut, you set the mortise gauge to the mortise chisel; thus the mortise is automatically the right size, made in a single pass of cuts, and you were going to have to cut the tenon in two separate line anyway, so there's no extra effort. Works for me, but if you have counter examples, I'm happy to listen.



> It also mattered in the past.



If you could add context, explanations or examples to your assertions, the discussion might be more fruitful. I know pantomime season draws nigh, but I'm not going to play "oh yes it is" "oh no it isn't" with you.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

Jacob":2e3wvvjp said:


> ..... the 10mm Narex would pass as a 3/8" but the other widths are a bit mysterious and useless, for me at least......


 I see they are intended to be metric in 2mm steps, but according to OP LuptonM's measurements they are under sized. Neither one thing or the other - don't buy them!


----------



## TobyB (29 Nov 2011)

My set of mortice chisels are metric, and measuring them at the cutting tip, not half way up the haft, they are accurate or less than a tenth smaller ... so the mortices they cut out measure dead-on (slight side abrasion in use?) ... maybe not so good if you want to work in imperial measures ... but working in metric as I do they are very good.


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

TobyB":iuqgwtj3 said:


> My set of mortice chisels are metric, and measuring them at the cutting tip, not half way up the haft, they are accurate or less than a tenth smaller ... so the mortices they cut out measure dead-on (slight side abrasion in use?) ... maybe not so good if you want to work in imperial measures ... but working in metric as I do they are very good.


Sounds like yours are under-size too, albeit by less than a tenth (10% is a lot though). Obviously one can work with that but a 10mm chisel should measure 10mm (using an ordinary scale not a vernier caliper) and not noticeably more or less:
1 so that you know how wide it is without having to check.
2 so that it is compatible with any other 10mm bits of kit you may use (do other narex chisels have identical or random widths?)
3 so it will fit, if your design calls for 10mm


----------



## Harbo (29 Nov 2011)

What's going on here Jacob, some sort of vindictive tirade against Narex and WH?

From what I have read you have never actually handled one, but somehow are able make damming statements about them?

Strange then, that everybody who has, recommends them? 

I know who I would rather believe?

I was always taught to set the gauge to the chisel used - so that level of chisel accuracy that you are complaining about was never an issue.
In fact I can say that I have never checked any of my chisels with a dial gauge - it's not necessary.

Rod


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

Harbo":24mpt9sq said:


> What's going on here Jacob, some sort of vindictive tirade against Narex and WH?


No not at all. It's just that when you get these explosions of enthusiasm it's a good idea to be a bit objective IMHO. I was surprised to read how inaccurate they are as that's one thing you really don't want with a mortice chisel, for all the reasons I gave above. Doesn't matter so much with other chisels.


> From what I have read you have never actually handled one, but somehow are able make damming statements about them?


It's from what I've read about them obviously


> Strange then, that everybody who has, recommends them?


Yes it is - particularly as so many forumites are usually so picky about this sort of thing, often when it doesn't really matter at all!


> .....
> I was always taught to set the gauge to the chisel used


You have to if the chisel is not standard size, but it's more productive and useful to have them the right size, for the reasons I gave above. They usually are the right size, no need not to be.


> so that level of chisel accuracy that you are complaining about was never an issue.


It is an issue if you can't rely on them being the stated size, for the reasons I gave above. Ditto with many tools I would have thought, if not all.


> In fact I can say that I have never checked any of my chisels with a dial gauge - it's not necessary.
> 
> Rod


Agree - an accurate scale is good enough for woodwork, but a vernier caliper does come in handy.


----------



## clk230 (29 Nov 2011)

i can't comment on the actual chisel's as i've not used them , but if they are not sized correctly then thats a matter for trading standards.


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

Are these chisels accurately made (width) or not? If not, they are no good.


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Nov 2011)

Jacob":o7o7zqfl said:


> Are these chisels accurately made (width) or not? If not, they are no good.



Still talking rubbish, Jacob. Hardly any chisels are precisely the size marked on them.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## t8hants (29 Nov 2011)

Perhaps we should have a shoot-out, somebody put a vernier on a load of old 'quality' British chisels just for fun! I was going to check my 22mm Erik Anto Berg, but I can't find my vernier! So if yours fail Jacobs standards please throw them in my direction, I'd love a full set of EAB's no matter how off size they are.

G


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

Paul Chapman":1a7xms9t said:


> Jacob":1a7xms9t said:
> 
> 
> > Are these chisels accurately made (width) or not? If not, they are no good.
> ...


Still talking rubbish, Paul. Most chisels are precisely the size marked on them. Mortice chisels _have_ to be.
Since when did you lot (the usual suspects) become so slap happy about precision? You are usually obsessive in quite the other direction! All that flattening, lapping, feeler gauges, micrometers, electron microscopes? :lol: :lol:
Our OPs 6mm seems to be out by 20%. Which would you send back, the chisel or the calipers?


----------



## condeesteso (29 Nov 2011)

Jacob":24bobz52 said:


> Are these chisels accurately made (width) or not? If not, they are no good.



Personally I don't give a stuff (and I am NOT implying that the Narex are off-size, I didn't even think to check). I like a mortice to fit a tenon... and the proportion relative to overall width must be about right. I would rather the chisel cut well than it measured a specific width, because I don' cut joints in millimeters, I just like them to fit. And if it was a really big sod I would still not care about the width, just the proportion and the fit.


----------



## studders (29 Nov 2011)

Could well be the Calipers, those budget digital ones are not 100% accurate.


----------



## studders (29 Nov 2011)

condeesteso":1nmmucb0 said:


> Personally I don't give a stuff (and I am NOT implying that the Narex are off-size, I didn't even think to check). I like a mortice to fit a tenon...


'ere 'ere

Who really cares if the Mortise is 9.5 mm or 10mm? So long as they fit that's all that really matters.


----------



## jimi43 (29 Nov 2011)

studders":6bog3jvo said:


> condeesteso":6bog3jvo said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I don't give a stuff (and I am NOT implying that the Narex are off-size, I didn't even think to check). I like a mortice to fit a tenon...
> ...



I have an old Sorby mortise chisel and it is 0.51235678 inches (approx.)

Another one for the bin! :roll: :roll: :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

studders":3t975wty said:


> condeesteso":3t975wty said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I don't give a stuff (and I am NOT implying that the Narex are off-size, I didn't even think to check). I like a mortice to fit a tenon...
> ...


Except that very often (but not always) the width of the M&T needs to align with another feature such as a slot, or the flat "land" of a window moulding. If it doesn't it usually can be worked around but may be difficult.

Funny how you are all suddenly being bold and reckless about accuracy, what's happened? Have you all turned on, tuned in, dropped out etc. Are you giving up flattening? It'll be rounded bevels next!


----------



## condeesteso (29 Nov 2011)

Jim: eight decimal places... you fussy man. I have a fine Japanese 1/2inch and it's roughly 1/2 inch, but only roughly. Cuts like a 'tart's gob' though.


----------



## No skills (29 Nov 2011)

Funny how some on here are happy to say that straight edges or flat surfaces are never 100% straight or flat but are unable to deal with 10mm not always being 10mm.


----------



## clk230 (29 Nov 2011)

nearly 20% out is not right at all wether its a chisel or any other item offfered for sale ,how can you compare a 6mm narex chisell to a 6mm any other chisel ? you'd have to compare it to a 5mm.
would you all be happy if your butchers or grocers scales were out by nearly 20%

a measure is there so we the public know that there is a consitence.


----------



## No skills (29 Nov 2011)

fair point, perhaps the addition of 'approximate size' should be used when advertising items?? is there a defined standard that would cover a product like this? (like the british standard used for squares/squareness?)


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

bugbear":lgh1p7i2 said:


> ....
> Yebbut, you set the mortise gauge to the mortise chisel; thus the mortise is automatically the right size, made in a single pass of cuts, and you were going to have to cut the tenon in two separate line anyway, so there's no extra effort. Works for me, but if you have counter examples, I'm happy to listen.


And I'm happy to explain - you have picked up some bad habits!
If you are doing a lot of stuff, say 5 windows with glazing bars, you could have something like 100 or so M&Ts to cut. You set your gauge to 1/2" and mark _all _your mortices and _all_ your tenons. You can then put the gauge away. You then cut all your mortices with a 1/2" chisel, and all your tenons to the lines you have made. That's all there is to it.
If you have an odd sized chisel and set the gauge accordingly the M&Ts will fit but other details may be out of line. Or if you swap odd sized chisel halfway through you may hit problems. You may need to think about this, but take your time


> > It also mattered in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you look at the history of maths, science, engineering, technology, and trade, you will find that standardised measurements have been an ideal from very early on, so that when someone asked for say a 1/4lb of tea, or a 1/2" tenon, then someone else would be able to provide one, having to hand as near as possible a standard weight or measure. I'm surprised you didn't know this - it didn't just come in with plywood and industrial production.

So when people order 1/2" chisels that is what they should expect to get. It's not rocket science. Our OP has a 5mm chisel sold as 6mm. He should send it back. The others aren't too accurate either.


----------



## studders (29 Nov 2011)

Where's the 20% coming from?
I'm not that good at Maffs but I don't make them 20% smaller/bigger than stated.


----------



## clk230 (29 Nov 2011)

the nearly 20% is coming from a 6mm chisel measuring only measuring 5.2mm


----------



## studders (29 Nov 2011)

Yes, I managed to misread the gauge _and_ the post. #-o

I agree that one is too small to have been marked as 6mm, unless I've made another BU the others seem within what I'd call acceptable. If I really wanted/needed a 6mm I would have sent it back, other wise I'd just live with it.


----------



## clk230 (29 Nov 2011)

No skills":1vbnr24g said:


> fair point, perhaps the addition of 'approximate size' should be used when advertising items?? is there a defined standard that would cover a product like this? (like the british standard used for squares/squareness?)



yes there is a defined standard its called weights and measures and is policed by the trading standards office , they can make you remove the items for sale until they are happy that they meet their requirements.They will allow a small tollerence but if its measuring 5.2mm not 6mm they will insist it is re marked as 5mm.

All seems fair to me its there to help and protect us.


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

clk230":3s7ysq53 said:


> No skills":3s7ysq53 said:
> 
> 
> > fair point, perhaps the addition of 'approximate size' should be used when advertising items?? is there a defined standard that would cover a product like this? (like the british standard used for squares/squareness?)
> ...


Phew common sense! 
9.56mm and 13.41mm aren't too good either. Send em back.
Jims 0.51" half inch is more accurate (only 0.25mm out) and is acceptable IMHO as it is slightly over size rather than under.
Funny watching the usual suspects getting so casual about precision. Are they burning their bras too? :lol: :lol: Perhaps they should be encouraged to loosen up a bit, but where will it lead? :shock:


----------



## No skills (29 Nov 2011)

Hmm educated twice in one night, must return to my cave.

I would certainly buy a set of narex chisels (and have been considering it for a while) and the size issue wouldnt bother me, BUT I do wonder - if I were making precise wooden items for a living if it would matter to me then.

:?:


----------



## clk230 (29 Nov 2011)

Nah wouldn't matter you just tell your customer the new fitted wardrobe does fit honest its just that you used the Narex measuring system thats why you can see gaps.


----------



## matthewwh (29 Nov 2011)

Blimey,

This thread has tickled along a bit since I last looked!

If anyone has a 6mm measuring 5.2mm at the tip, (or anything else that is miles out) send it back and I will gladly replace it and cover all of the postage costs. I have never seen one that far out and if it proves to be so will ensure that it ends up being gently hammered into the centre of the production manager's desk. As I have explained before there should be a taper in the width over the length of the chisel - this is intentional and stops it from binding in the same way that the set on a saw prevents it from binding. 1mm of taper over the full length of a 16mm chisel is about right - proportionally applied to the smaller sizes.

Time for some facts to substantiate how accurate or inaccurate they are, as I'm probably the only one here with boxes of Narex chisels to measure and a factory fresh Moore & Wright dial caliper complete with inspection certificate, so I'll do the decent thing - here's the results for some mortice chisels chosen at random from the open boxes and measured at the tip:

8882 6mm: 5.95mm
8882 6mm: 6.05mm
8882 6mm: 6.00mm
8882 10mm: 10.06mm
8882 10mm: 10.08mm
8882 5mm: 5.02mm
8882 5mm: 5.09mm
8112 12mm: 12.02mm
8112 12mm: 11.92mm
8112 6mm: 6.03mm
8112 6mm: 6.03mm

My understanding of being out by a tenth would be a tenth of a mm not a tenth of the stated width. For a CNC mass produced chisel I'd still be happy if they got within two tenths of a mm as this is well within the capacity of the home user to tune the mortice chisel to the plough iron or vice versa for combined operations. I'd certainly question whether a hand grinder making mortice chisels 100 years ago would have reliably got anywhere near as close as this. I wouldn't expect today's hand grinders to achieve this level of accuracy in the width of a chisel and they have the advantage of experience, having not died of silicosis before they hit 30.

Expecting metric chisels to conform to imperial measurements and then berating them for being inaccurate is just plain silly. If people want imperial ones that's no problem at all, they already make them for the American market and I would be delighted to stock them if the demand is there.

If anyone feels like putting the calipers on any of the other mortice chisels on the market, LN, Sorby etc please feel free to post your results.


----------



## unra159 (29 Nov 2011)

matthewwh":12xbijci said:


> Hi Marc,
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



If you take a closer look at the photos you'll notice that measurement was taken somewhere in the middle of the blade.
Given the fact that the blades are slightly tapered along their length (see quote) the reading has to be less than the stated width of the chisel.
I happen to own four of these and as far as I remember they are pretty accurate measured at the cutting edge. 
I checked it simply out of curiosity after I read Marc's review earlier this year.
When I tried to check again today I noticed the battery of my calliper is dead. Will get a new one tomorrow.

regards
Thorsten


----------



## jimi43 (29 Nov 2011)

How VERY dare your Matthew!!! :mrgreen: 

All my Sorbys...no matter who was the brother...are accurate to within a few microns!

How else would they get precise mortices cut to fit the precise tenons that they made way back then....

I do hope you will be throwing those not absolutely accurate in the bin from now on instead of sending them out to poor unsuspecting eeegits!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Jim

PS....notice how I freely scatter the mortice/mortise words so as to prevent further pedants from gaining fodder for their armoury!!! :wink:


----------



## unra159 (29 Nov 2011)

I really have to get faster writing in English :wink: 

Thorsten


----------



## matthewwh (29 Nov 2011)

They could always have fitted the tenon to the mortice, or is that too much lateral thinking?

The Oxford English Dictionary accepts either spelling, which fuggers up those wishing to be different nicely!


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

Right so they are accurate after all and our OP just measured them wrongly! That's OK then :roll: . Are you reading this LuptonM? its all your fault.
You'll be pleased to have read here that Narex fans couldn't give a monkeys what width they are. I thought they had undergone some sort of paradigm shift but it seems not. Pity.


----------



## LuptonM (29 Nov 2011)

As I remember i tried to measure the width at the bottom. I think they were about 0.2mm smaller at the top face. I don't think the actual size matters unless you're using it with a combination of router bits. Edit: Didn't realize they are tapered in length as well as width

I'll remeasure when I get home (about 3 weeks). Please note I've also become much more proficient at sharpening than when this review thingy was done

I'd quite like to try Ray Iles mortise chisels as I think I may prefer the pick sticker design. However they are much more expensive and probably wouldn't make any difference to the quality of the work produced- ie more of an indulgence


----------



## bugbear (30 Nov 2011)

Jacob":1bjlwa60 said:


> bugbear":1bjlwa60 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Er. Yes. That's the method I use too. My tenons fit nicely. Could you (please) expand on these "other details". The MT marking and cutting process is well understood, and doesn't bear belabouring. You mentioned a shoulder detail in a window M & T. That would be of interest.



> Or if you swap odd sized chisel halfway through you may hit problems.



Yes - swapping mortise chisels to a different size would be very foolish, and cause trouble. Why would anyone ever do that? Straw man. methinks.

There was an interesting article on the theme of absolute versus "matched" sizes by an expert in 18th C woodworking, but I can't lay my hand on it right now. I'll try to find it.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (30 Nov 2011)

I hesitate to prolong a thread which has lurched around like this one has, but in the general melee there was an interesting point which deserves to be clarified. Sometimes, mortice and tenon joints will need to be made which match a pre-set dimension. This happens in traditional window making. I happened across this illustration which I hope will help:







To make the mortice for the tenon marked A to fit into (or the one at E) you need a chisel of the same width as the plain, flat bit of the moulding. If you were repairing an old window which had been made in a time of imperial sized tools, and the width was (say) half an inch, you would need a half inch chisel, not a 12mm one.

I would imagine that joiners would have liked to stick with standard sizes, so they didn't have to re-equip with new planes, chisels and sticking boards.

If you were making the whole thing by hand from new, you could design the dimensions to match the tools that you have.


----------



## Jacob (30 Nov 2011)

That's it. Thanks for that it saves me having to explain yet _another_ thing to BB,* which can take up such a lot of time!
If you don't have a 1/2' mortice chisel you either have to alter the whole design to match the chisel or end up with a funny little inconvenient shoulder detail with every M&T, and there may be hundreds in a common job.
1/2" mortice chisels usually _are_ 1/2" and you can scale off your gauge setting instead of matching it to a chisel.
NB I did quite a few doors and windows entirely by hand when I started out, using a modern Marples sash mortice chisel (not unlike the Narex but with a much better handle - yellow plastic) as I couldn't afford a proper one and ebay hadn't been invented.

*Mind you he does listen, sometimes:


bugbear":v42hiiy7 said:


> ...Er. Yes. That's the method I use too....


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Racers (30 Nov 2011)

I see you can only make a mortice the same width as the chisel, you can't pair the sides slightly wider.

Things are getting out of hand AGAIN


Pete


----------



## Jacob (30 Nov 2011)

Racers":1hd3yoxh said:


> I see you can only make a mortice the same width as the chisel, you can't pair the sides slightly wider.
> 
> ...
> 
> Pete


For one yes, for one hundred, not bloody likely!


----------



## Racers (30 Nov 2011)

Jacob


I would reply but you are wearing me out, I will just go along with every thing you say, you are right, you are right, your are right....

My heart sinks when I see a reply from you.


Pete


----------



## Dodge (30 Nov 2011)

Racers":3ihzftzn said:


> Jacob
> 
> 
> I would reply but you are wearing me out, I will just go along with every thing you say, you are right, you are right, your are right....
> ...




=D> =D> Hear Hear !!!!!


----------



## Jacob (30 Nov 2011)

I can't say I've read anything of interest from you two to form an opinion. Do you come here often?


----------



## andy king (30 Nov 2011)

Jacob":hw1qg132 said:


> That's it. Thanks for that it saves me having to explain yet _another_ thing to BB,* which can take up such a lot of time!
> If you don't have a 1/2' mortice chisel you either have to alter the whole design to match the chisel or end up with a funny little inconvenient shoulder detail with every M&T, and there may be hundreds in a common job.
> 1/2" mortice chisels usually _are_ 1/2" and you can scale off your gauge setting instead of matching it to a chisel.
> NB I did quite a few doors and windows entirely by hand when I started out, using a modern Marples sash mortice chisel (not unlike the Narex but with a much better handle - yellow plastic) as I couldn't afford a proper one and ebay hadn't been invented.



In the example illustration posted, common sense would dictate that the flat area on the mould should be matched and machined to a suitable chisel of close dimension to your actual desired dimension for example, 12mm as opposed to 1/2in isn't the end of the world! - any minor discrepancy is easily lost in the glazing rebate making it a little deeper /shallower accordingly, therefore eliminating an 'inconvenient shoulder detail' assuming the scenario of '100 mortices' you referred to, which would imply you are machining your own stock?
Even a repair can be done in similar fashion - machining a slightly deeper/shallow rebate will give a step discrepancy of new to old (and i'm talking the same fractional discrepancies as the chisel argument) but will then be lost in the back putty when glazing.
That said, if i had to cut 100 mortices, i doubt i'd be doing them by hand! 

Andy


----------



## Jacob (1 Dec 2011)

andy king":3dtqvwzg said:


> ....
> 
> In the example illustration posted, common sense would dictate that the flat area on the mould should be matched and machined to a suitable chisel of close dimension to your actual desired dimension for example, 12mm as opposed to 1/2in isn't the end of the world! - any minor discrepancy is easily lost in the glazing rebate making it a little deeper /shallower accordingly, therefore eliminating an 'inconvenient shoulder detail' assuming the scenario of '100 mortices' you referred to, which would imply you are machining your own stock?
> Even a repair can be done in similar fashion - machining a slightly deeper/shallow rebate will give a step discrepancy of new to old (and i'm talking the same fractional discrepancies as the chisel argument) but will then be lost in the back putty when glazing.
> ...


It wasn't about making do, which obviously is perfectly possible, as you describe. It was about accuracy in chisel widths. 
Some of the posters above seem to think it doesn't matter, that they never are accurate anyway and that early makers couldn't be accurate on their grindwheels. I was saying it does matter and that a 1/2" chisel should be exactly 1/2", or you could hit problems, and that they usually are reliably accurate, such that you don't need to measure them and you can set your gauge to a scale quite safely.
Just to be really pedantic I've measured my 7 very old mortice chisels (got to get some work done :roll: ) and with two exceptions they are all within 0.1mm.
The seven are nominally 1/8, 1/4, 5/16, [email protected]/8, [email protected]/2, inch. 
The 5/16" measures 7.7mm instead of 7.9 (0.2mm under) which is just about OK, but it is old and worn.
One of the 3/8" measures 10.2 instead of 9.5 which is a big difference, but this one has a stroke through the makers name (Marples) which means factory reject, presumably because of the width.
So only one out of six varies by more than 0.1mm from accurate but isn't far out in practical terms.
The others are _all_ from dead on to very slightly over sized by less than 0.1mm, which is fine in woodworking terms, with a slight bias in the right direction IMHO.

PS This random collection of old chisels (except for the two exceptions, one being worn out and the other faulty) are just as accurate in width as the Narexs per Matthew's figures. And so they should be!


----------



## bugbear (1 Dec 2011)

Jacob":1uwjl4n1 said:


> That's it. Thanks for that it saves me having to explain yet _another_ thing to BB,* which can take up such a lot of time!
> 
> *Mind you he does listen, sometimes:
> 
> ...



Andy T's picture was far more helpful than your unsupported assertions. If you don't want to explain things, perhaps forums are not for you.

And (just to be clear) my knowledge of how to mark and cut mortise and tenons was not gained by listening to you.

I read a book. 

I have learnt a couple of things about windows from you.

BugBear


----------



## condeesteso (1 Dec 2011)

And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...


----------



## Jacob (1 Dec 2011)

condeesteso":s99rfkxx said:


> And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...


So? The discussion has been largely about the apparent lack of precision in the width, as posted by the OP in his review, and has stayed pretty much on topic throughout. Pretty good compared to some threads.


----------



## Allylearm (1 Dec 2011)

Jacob":3f2h7wv2 said:


> condeesteso":3f2h7wv2 said:
> 
> 
> > And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...
> ...



My thoughts is these chisels are just modern variants from euro land that do not aspire to meet a good standard of manufacturers tolerence they are what they are a cheap variant. I will stick with my old British made chisels thank you very much.

Whats next the expensive yank planes are not flat. What is the world coming too.


----------



## bugbear (1 Dec 2011)

Allylearm":3k2xpxpo said:


> Jacob":3k2xpxpo said:
> 
> 
> > condeesteso":3k2xpxpo said:
> ...



You might want to read back in the thread where matthewwh measured a number of these chisels rather more carefully than the OP and found that they are (in fact) accurate to width.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (1 Dec 2011)

bugbear":bzho9ks7 said:


> ......
> 
> You might want to read back in the thread where matthewwh measured a number of these chisels rather more carefully than the OP and found that they are (in fact) accurate to width.
> 
> BugBear


Different (in fact) chisels! We await our OP's second attempt with baited breath. :shock: 
Anyway Matthew's measurements produced pretty average results no better than my oldies, but that's OK - good enough for woodwork.

Just looked at my faulty chisel - the laminated face is semi-detached (fine crack) so maybe that is why it was rejected and then was never ground to size.


----------



## Harbo (1 Dec 2011)

I am just amazed at these people who can give judgement on a product that they have never seen or handled in the flesh!
This started off as a review by somebody that actually bought that them and liked them.
Spoiled by the usual contingent that takes great distorted pleasure in knocking anything new! 

Rod


----------



## Jacob (1 Dec 2011)

Ooops sorry didn't realise is was just a game!


----------



## condeesteso (1 Dec 2011)

Hi all - i think there is mileage in this thread yet. I just nipped out and got my older set of 3 MHG mortice chisels (from Rutlands, and got before I even knew about the Narex). The MHG are £23.95 each... significantly more than the Narex at around £15 (depending on exact size).
They look like this:





I did a size check:




Right at the cutting edge, with my Mitsutoyo which I trust within .01mm:

13mm = 12.83
9mm = 10.04
6mm = 5.77

Not bad, not stunning in the case of the 6mm... do I care? Never ever measured them til this came up!

What I liked about the MHG was the blade machining - no polishing, no nasty lacquer (which I have seen on their b/edge sets and I truly hate).
One difference that stands out against the Narex, is the very beefy handle of the MHG. BUT I did think the Narex blades looked really well machined, though I can't say either looks better and don't have a Narex in front of me.
As for edge performance, I would need to test one against the other - Jim has one of Matthew's samples, so I may try them head-to-head.
If anyone else would like to do that instead, my MHG v the Narex... seriously let me know. I'm sure Jim / Matthew wouldn't mind and it would be a truly unbiased comparison then.
But without being able to test edge v edge, the Narex looks a really well-made bargain to me. (But maybe watch out for the Rutlands 20% offers as that closes the gap a fair bit.)

And the pencil supporting the 13mm? It's a Caran D'Ache of course.


----------



## Jacob (1 Dec 2011)

condeesteso":2pi126cv said:


> ........
> 13mm = 12.83
> 9mm = 10.04
> 6mm = 5.77
> ...


It's the 9mm which is most out - much too far (you should care!) and the 6 isn't good. Does it say 9mm on it? Just file it off and put 10 instead.


> ...e very beefy handle of the MHG. ......


but very slender necks for mortice chisels.
Don't buy em!


----------



## condeesteso (1 Dec 2011)

very sorry Jacob - that was me. It's a 10mm of course, here measuring 10.02mm. I think I was being slack when I got 10.04:





And here's the neck on the 10mm:





Fancy trying one?


----------



## Dodge (1 Dec 2011)

Ok here we go - just to set the record straight

I own a set of Narex 8112 Mortice Chisels and a set of Narex 8116 Cabinet Makers Chisels - I bought these with my hard earned dosh through my own choice having reviewed what was currently for sale on the market. 

I am a professional cabinet maker with over 30 years under my belt since selling my first piece of commissioned furniture, I have also had over 100 articles on furniture conbstruction published in The Woodworker Magazine and Practical Woodworking Magazine (Before its demise!) over the last 10 years as well as having demonstrated at The Alexandra Palace & Stoneleigh Woodworking shows on many occasions - I believe this therefore enables me to make an educated and informed decision! 

Using my Narex chisels today I took the time to measure them with my digital vernier callipers and the results are below:- 

Narex 8112 Mortice Chisels

4mm - 4.02mm
6mm - 5.99mm
8mm - 7.98mm
10mm - 10.00mm! 

Narex 8116 Cabinet Makers Chisels

6mm - 6.01mm
10mm - 10.03mm
12mm - 12.01mm
16mm - 15.98mm
20mm - 19.99mm
26mm - 26.03mm

Now I'm sure that you can see that all the chisels are within 3/100 mm which I believe if more than acceptable!!

I also measured the Kirschen Chisels which I own and use - these measured as below:-

6mm - 5.82mm -0.18mm
10mm - 9.85mm -0.15mm
16mm - 16.07mm +0.07mm
20mm - 19.94mm -0.06mm 
26mm - 25.92mm -0.08mm

You can therefore conclude that my Narex are much more accurate than my Kirschen chisels so come on guys lets cut the rubbish and put this to thread to bed. I have actually owned the Kirschens for about 8 years and guess what? - I had never previously measured them - nor found their inaccuracy to be a problem! 

Anyway - I was also machining some premium quality oak today (Moisture content measured at 10.82%) - after thicknessing I measured the thickness of an off-cut before leaving it on the bench - I re-measured the thickness of the oak again after a couple of hours and the thickness had changed by 0.09mm so what is the problem with a chisel being 3/100mm different to what it purports to be! 

I'm sure a certain member will find a way to twist and knock what I have posted but do you know what - I really like my Narex Chisels so I don't give a damn! Oh and I would strongly recommend them through my personal experience in using them!

Sorry to those I have bored with this post but up until now I had actually enjoyed being a member of this forum but one or two people are really just doing their utmost to destroy it by naffing off the genuine members - SHAME ON THEM!!!


----------



## jimi43 (1 Dec 2011)

Dodge":1cme98n9 said:


> Sorry to those I have bored with this post but up until now I had actually enjoyed being a member of this forum but one or two people are really just doing their utmost to destroy it by naffing off the genuine members - SHAME ON THEM!!!



Don't be sorry Dodge mate...I think there are many more here who are equally cheesed off to the back teeth with the childish way thread after perfectly good thread is destroyed in this way.... :roll: 

Jim


----------



## condeesteso (1 Dec 2011)

"and put this to thread to bed"
But let's not overlook the fact that the OP was not simply about measuring the width of a mortice chisel. And someone we know is now all smug cos us lot are getting the verniers etc out, taking pics etc, all for a couple of thou.
The thread was really about Narex chisels (mortice specifically)... it just got dragged into a ruler-fest.
I await the 'last word' on this thread with no interest - I'm off elsewhere.


----------



## Mark A (1 Dec 2011)

I really don't understand why there is an issue over the width of a chisel varying by a few thou, especially when wood is a natural material which fluctuates dimensionally depending on its moisture level, as Dodge pointed out above. 

Thanks everyone for the comments praising the quality and value of the Narex chisels because I've just added a set to my Christmas list!


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

mark aspin":2d6as251 said:


> I really don't understand why there is an issue over the width of a chisel varying by a few thou, especially when wood is a natural material which fluctuates dimensionally depending on its moisture level, as Dodge pointed out above.
> 
> Thanks everyone for the comments praising the quality and value of the Narex chisels because I've just added a set to my Christmas list!


The issue was that the OP seemed to have Narex chisels with very random widths; more than a few thou. He himself asked about this _"....in case ppl wanted to raise the fact that the 6mm chisels is surprisingly smaller than stated"_ but nobody commented.
The consensus seemed to be that the width of mortice chisels didn't matter, nobody really cared. 
My point was that it did matter, and a 1/2" (or 10mm) nominal chisel which wasn't close to 1/2" (or 10mm) was a liability and should be binned.
Basically the "don't care either way" lobby seems to be in the ascendant but my guess is that for them it's all just a game as they don't really do a lot of mortices by hand anyway.


----------



## bugbear (2 Dec 2011)

Jacob":3lgriwfd said:


> My point was that it did matter, and a 1/2" (or 10mm) nominal chisel which wasn't close to 1/2" (or 10mm) was a liability and should be binned.



I guess it* is *about the tools after all.

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

bugbear":3lcw5fqi said:


> Jacob":3lcw5fqi said:
> 
> 
> > My point was that it did matter, and a 1/2" (or 10mm) nominal chisel which wasn't close to 1/2" (or 10mm) was a liability and should be binned.
> ...


Missed the point (as usual) BB. :roll: It's about _using_ the tools.


----------



## andy king (2 Dec 2011)

Jacob":3w3xuis7 said:


> My point was that it did matter, and a 1/2" (or 10mm) nominal chisel which wasn't close to 1/2" (or 10mm) was a liability and should be binned.
> Basically the "don't care either way" lobby seems to be in the ascendant but my guess is that for them it's all just a game as they don't really do a lot of mortices by hand anyway.



But in reality it doesn't really though, does it?
'Trad' way is to set the pins on the gauge to the chisel and align one pin to the wall of the rebate, mark up and cut. 'Wosser problem?' to quote yourself.
The mortice fits the chisel, the tenon, marked from the same gauge and cut accurately, fits the mortice. 
As was already noted way back in the thread, subsequent postings commented on where the measurements were taken and the fact that fractional clearance tapers accounted for the anomoly in the first place anyway...

Andy


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

andy king":24lf6wjt said:


> ....
> 'Trad' way is to set the pins on the gauge to the chisel


Easier and slightly more accurate to do it to a scale


> and align one pin to the wall of the rebate,


Really? Never done that myself. Much easier to do mortices _before_ any rebates, slots, mouldings etc and tenons after ditto


> ... 'Wosser problem?'


No problem at all if the mortice chisel is reasonably accurate - and it seems they all are, except our OPs in the first post.


----------



## andy king (2 Dec 2011)

Jacob":z6fk5lus said:


> andy king":z6fk5lus said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



I disagree that setting to a scale is 'slightly more accurate' especially if the chisel you are using is slightly under or oversized. It's not difficult to align two pins directly over a chisel, it's a fundemental part of woodworking, and is the traditional, dyed in the wool method of setting out taught at all levels, school upwards - at least, it was when i was at school anyway.
The chisels should also be used when setting out your initial rod, that way all subsequent marking out is smack on to the chisel being used, no room for error.

Your second point about doing rebates, moulds etc first. Yes, you can do this, and you can still align one of the pins to where that mortice/rebate wall will start, but if you mould first and joint second, you have to be sure your machining of such moulds and rebates are smack on, especially if you are in a situation where you have to cut the mortice in the floor of a rebate as this will affect the tenon dimension if you mark everything from a rod set out to percieved moulds and rebates, not actual ones.
I prefer to machine and then mark the rod from the components so the everything on the rod is 'as is' no slight discrepacy of moulding errors compounding. Curved work needs a bit more thought, but can be done equally well, you just need to adapt accordingly.
I've been doing joinery since 1977, and adapting and thinking on your feet to deal with situations as they arise is what it's all about, life is a learning curve, not an excuse for an argument.

Finally, 'it seems they all are, except our OPs in the first post.' 
Yes, and then pointed out very early on in the thread that the measurement was taken from the wrong place, and plenty of others have since taken measurements of various tools, all falling in close dimension to the size they should be, and also replacements offered should they prove to be rogue and way out. Again, 'wosser problem?'

Andy


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

andy king":r4hy7a6x said:


> ...if the chisel you are using is slightly under or oversized.....


 probably a good idea to ebay it if it's a mortice chisel, or at least mark it clearly with the actual dimensions


> ..........
> Your second point about doing rebates, moulds etc first. Yes, you can do this,...


I don't. I mortice first. Doesn't everybody? Doing it afterwards is very inconvenient, by machine or by hand. Not a good idea at all, bad practice in fact.


> I prefer to machine and then mark the rod from the components


I don't follow this. Which marks would you put on the rod afterwards? I put absolutely everything on the rod at the beginning, before I've even started a cutting list, and then mark once only whilst the stuff is in the square. The only other marks I might add would be the ones I'd forgotten.


----------



## andy king (2 Dec 2011)

Jacob":3e28spth said:


> andy king":3e28spth said:
> 
> 
> > Your second point about doing rebates, moulds etc first. Yes, you can do this,...
> ...


Nope, works well in many applications, I use both depending on the work.
It's not set in stone, it's a different way of working, not 'bad practice' at all.
Taught to me by people who had been doing joinery to high standards for many years and as said back then 'you'll find that traditional ways will work well for you, but you'll find there are many workarounds that get the same result and you'll adapt some or all of these things to suit your own methods' I have.
Even doing the mortices first, moulds after, the initial marking up still eliminates any problem with fractional chisel discrepancies. Common sense first and foremost.

Andy


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

andy king":1lcqy5og said:


> Jacob":1lcqy5og said:
> 
> 
> > andy king":1lcqy5og said:
> ...


Example?


----------



## andy king (2 Dec 2011)

Jacob":16t7aw1y said:


> Example?



Well I could quite easily play you at your own game and move on to something else rather than answer.
If i can find some images of work where i've used it, i'll post them. I'd go to the workshop and do a walkthough, but at the moment, pretty impossible as I snapped my Achilles tendon at the weekend and i'm on crutches and in plaster for the next two months minimum.
Just as a quick reply for now, it works well for joinery such as doors etc.


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

Sorry about your ankle, hope it gets better quickly.
I'm sure there could be an occasion when you'd want to do a mortice _after_ mouldings etc but I can't think of one myself, least of all on doors. Any suggestions anybody?


----------



## andy king (2 Dec 2011)

As being able to make or show examples are difficult at the moment, here's a situation where the choice would have to be cutting joints after moulding.
I worked in Bath for a number of years, and with such extensive use of box sashes in the buildings, there was always repair/conservation work going on, and a couple of timber yards stocked specific sections with approproiate period mouldings to match existing so you could build a window from scratch and know it would match the existing architecture.
You have no choice but to mark up and cut the joints secondary if you follow this route, and it's not really as problematic as you seem to believe TBH.
At the end of the day, the minor/fractional discrepancy of the mortice chisel is what this thread is all about.
I'm simply saying it is not the problem you are making it out to be by using the basics of setting and marking out to justify it.

Andy


----------



## Jacob (2 Dec 2011)

andy king":2y7kgk0h said:


> ....here's a situation where the choice would have to be cutting joints after moulding.......


No choice if the stuff is already profiled!
Where there is a choice you'd choose to mortice first wherever possible IMHO.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2011)

I forgot to add - the Narex lengthways tapered notion isn't something I'd heard of before. 
Seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
Can't see what help it would be. The opposite if anything - parallel sides keep the thing straight and the repeated levering to and fro will keep the sides of the mortice flat. With a taper it could go off line. 
On the other hand the trapezoid cross section is usual with OBM, but isn't with sash mortice chisels (which the Narexs are). 
The reason is obvious - if you tried to do a short 3/4" long mortice with a 1/2" sash chisel with tapered section, then the middle of the sides wouldn't be cleared. This is why sash MCs are square in section - or rectangular at least, if not square.
I might borrow a 1/2" and have a go side by side with my old OBM.
Makes yer think tho' dunnit, when someone takes a tried and tested idea and tries to "improve" it. :roll:


----------



## dunbarhamlin (3 Dec 2011)

Check your OBMCs - all of mine, both vintage and Ray's are slightly tapered, wider at the business end, narrower at the bolster.
(Just a smudge on the modern, quite noticably to the naked eye on the 3 vintage. Can't quantify - made the mistake of getting a digital caliper many moons ago, and of course the battery has decided to run out just now - will get a proper one next time I order something from across the pond.)


----------



## Allylearm (3 Dec 2011)

Jacob":xel4wvfe said:


> andy king":xel4wvfe said:
> 
> 
> > ....here's a situation where the choice would have to be cutting joints after moulding.......
> ...



I would think this method is for peeps who purchase ready run materials and did it myself with no other option or access to shaping machinery. Like scribe cuts on tenons and breakout you would prefer to mortise then mould. 

It is better to mortise in the square and in particular machining processes now like CNC Routers you mortise before shaping to align the material in clamp and position using the mortise. I manufacture a lot of garden park benches to machine front shaped legs, arms shaped and back legs shaped you must dress square leaving enough for shaping, then mortise out, then tenon and shape, tenon can be used as a clamp and alignment method in jigs. You could not get a shaped part in a CNC Mortiser it has limited width of feed and a jig is not an option, in mine and ones I have seen. The CNC Router with C Axis can eliminate this issue by mortising and shaping and tenoning the whole part in one shot. But who has use of £105k worth of C Axis router in their workshop. I do use router mortises that are quick on back slats of bench and is very much quicker than the oscillating mortise that it also has fitted to it. The major problem in this method is depth of mortise as a lot of it gets cut away in shaping and the time extra it takes to mortise so deep is time consuming. CNC with C axis is a great deal faster but costly to setup as CNC Tenoner is £20k and limited in my case to 50mm in length of tenon though it can do round/square tenons and dowel tenon. The CNC Mortiser with oscillating and router head configuration is going to be in the region of £30k but oscillating is slow.

As for rods, I always make them first and use them for marking timber to shoulders/position joints. I do not see the benefit of making a rod for the opposite unless doing a one off and no particular difficulty to make or designed with curves or arches so no rod needed. Rod's are to repeat manufacture of multiples to size. This is not the sole need of a rod and can be utilised to exact size on site and bring back to the workshop and not rely on size(tape) alone. Like worktops in granite, you make up a rod/template to full size with layout and cut later of site.

I still wonder about the tapering of this chisel, through wear you will get smaller as you go further up the chisel or am I missing something. I would hope my chisel be parallel all the way up in use and longevity of ownership. But as a irregular fault or a faulty example I can except the issue and as mentioned it has been offered to be replaced, sound


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2011)

I use a rod one way or another even for fairly simple one offs. You have to measure and mark everything anyway so you might as well do it in one go on a board and then lift your marks off, knowing that everything will fit.


----------



## Vann (5 Dec 2011)

Jacob":2wishx9l said:


> It's about _using_ the tools.


Err.. No, not necessarily.

This section is titled "Hand Tools", not "Using Hand Tools". It includes: repairing hand tools; refurbing hand tools; sharpening hand tools; using hand tools and; collecting hand tools.

So ANY discussion involving hand tools is legit. Trashing other people's views is suspect.

I note that some modern chisels are sold as both metric and imperial i.e "1/2 inch, 12mm". I've only seen this on bevel edged chisels. Maybe the discrepancy isn't so crucial on non-mortice chisels :?: 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## promhandicam (5 Dec 2011)

Vann":2jcx9sqw said:


> Jacob":2jcx9sqw said:
> 
> 
> > It's about _using_ the tools.
> ...



Sadly, for some at least, I don't think that Jacob has grasped the fact that there many members of UKWorkshop who have little or in some cases no interest in actually using the tools and equipment that they acquire and the number who actually try to make a living from using them is relatively small, although I fall into that category. Each to their own, and if you are happy sitting in your shed honing your chisels whilst waiting for the hairs to grow back on the back of your hand or you get a thrill rubbing camellia oil on your planes whilst reading the axminster catalogue that is fine by me - at least you are off the streets! :wink: 

I know Jacob winds some people up - only he knows if he does it deliberately or not - however I for one have learnt more about certain aspects of woodworking from Jacobs posts than from many others, and that is ultimately what this forum is intended for - 

From the Home page of UKWorkshop:


> This site was built to help people of any age to learn the basics of woodworking.



Cheers, 

Steve


----------



## Jacob (5 Dec 2011)

:lol: :lol: 
That's a killer quote, says it all:


promhandicam":o2ghk0qi said:


> Vann":o2ghk0qi said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":o2ghk0qi said:
> ...


----------



## jimi43 (5 Dec 2011)

I think Steve's post is one of the most calm, accurate and understanding posts on an otherwise trashed thread.

There are people who are just interested in making basic things, there are people who pride themselves in making fine furniture or glorious exotic wood bowls.

There are those who simply admire high-tech tools, fine hand tools or vintage masterpieces of the toolmaker's art.

Generally speaking, most fall somewhere in between.

There are those who want to make jigs...the ultimate sharpening jig or the perfect mouse-trap.

ALL of these types practice woodworking or working with wood and should be welcome here to show their art, their latest toy or a lump of wood they picked up from a skip which turns out to be from deep in the Amazon rainforest!!

I think all of this is accepted by most here....

Jim


----------



## Jacob (5 Dec 2011)

I don't understand what is meant by "trashed thread". It seems to have covered some interesting ground without wandering too far off. NB we are still waiting for LuptonM to measure his tools _in the right place_!
I admit - it does feel like intruding into some sort of tooly religious rite sometimes (all singing from the same sheet :roll: ). Maybe a notice on the door? Do not disturb?


----------



## Modernist (5 Dec 2011)

Before I left for work this morning I made a fresh Americano and sat calmly in the workshop, just looking at things (mainly tools), and began the day better for it.

It's now 12.00 and I have long lost any benefit :roll:


----------



## promhandicam (5 Dec 2011)

Jacob":pcyfn6pc said:


> I don't understand what is meant by "trashed thread".



Possibly referring to the fact that this started out as a review of some chisels, and as so often happens has wandered off down various different related and unrelated pathways - which I am guilty of too. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, as if someone was just looking to purchase some mortice chisels they'd quite possibly have lost the will to live after trying to plough their way through around 100 posts and counting. Maybe there should be a bit more discipline from all on this forum in sticking to the topic and if necessary starting a new thread to develop another idea - eg. a separate thread on Rods might have been helpful as few people hoping to learn something about using rods will expect to find it tucked away on page 94 of a review on some Czech Chisels! 

Over and out - not because this isn't and interesting discussion just that I have nothing to add to the OP's post :wink: 

Steve


----------



## studders (5 Dec 2011)

How very dare you bring sense into this thread.


----------



## bugbear (6 Dec 2011)

Jacob":2nvr8v4g said:


> I don't understand what is meant by "trashed thread".



If true (which I find unlikely) you might want to ponder that awhile.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (6 Dec 2011)

bugbear":of0jxqb3 said:


> Jacob":of0jxqb3 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what is meant by "trashed thread".
> ...


I have pondered it. I see your contributions and feebly sarcastic posts like the above as often being the point where the tone starts getting lowered. The result is that you annoy everybody BB, not just me.


----------

