# Chisel Handles



## DTR (20 Aug 2012)

Wasn't sure whether this belonged in _Hand Tools_ or _Wood Turning_...

My good lady bought me a set of vintage chisels, all with no handles. I'm some way off of doing anything with them yet, but I may as well ask the questions now. Note that I have zero wood turning experience at the mo. I'd like to make them in the London pattern as blogged by ALF some time ago. What wood makes a good chisel handle? I know that beech and box are common. And ideally it should be straight grained or riven.

I was given a large chunk of iroko recently, probably because it's as twisted as a mad woman's cowpat. I know that many people react badly to the stuff but I have yet to detirmine if I am one of those people. But I've also read that iroko is popular amongst turners. So health concerns aside, would iroko be suitable for chisel handles?

Thanks in advance


----------



## paulm (20 Aug 2012)

I made some iroko handles for my Lie Neilsen chisels so that if I want to do heavier work with them on occasion I don't need to be belting the gorgeous looking cocobolo handles :roll: :lol: 

The iroko seems to have quite interlocking grain and stands up to a bit of pounding very well so far, so I think you should be fine with it, does tend to be very bland though although that may not bother you if you are more interested in using them !

Cheers, Paul


----------



## Klaus Kretschmar (20 Aug 2012)

Iroko should work fine for chisel handles. It's sturdy enough to do a good job. The wood is relatively open grained however. Nothing wrong with that, it works fine though. You can achieve a very smooth surface that is very comfortable to touch if you fill the pores before finishing the handle.

Klaus


----------



## bugbear (20 Aug 2012)

paulm":2zd8gyy9 said:


> The iroko seems to have quite interlocking grain and stands up to a bit of pounding very well so far, so I think you should be fine with it, does tend to be very bland though although that may not bother you if you are more interested in using them !
> 
> Cheers, Paul



Can't be as bland as box or beech!

BugBear


----------



## DTR (20 Aug 2012)

Thank you for the replies so far. 

Blandness isn't really a concern. As nice as some exotic handles would be, I'd rather use the wood I have than spend money on something else and still be left with some twisty iroko. 



Klaus Kretschmar":2uwqy0b7 said:


> Iroko should work fine for chisel handles. It's sturdy enough to do a good job. The wood is relatively open grained however. Nothing wrong with that, it works fine though. You can achieve a very smooth surface that is very comfortable to touch if you fill the pores before finishing the handle.
> 
> Klaus



Thank you for the advice. How do you recommend filling the pores?


----------



## jimi43 (20 Aug 2012)

Depending on the cut...box and beech can have the most amazing figuring...(as can any wood) but generally speaking...I would use box because it colours to a wonderful hue...especially after treatment with linseed oil....

Box....







When it's new...it can be bland like this one I made...






...but the older it gets...the more beautiful it gets...






I tell you what though...the most beautiful wood I've worked recently is definitely lilac...






Now THAT is stunning stuff...(except if you use the species *Lilac Woodblokensis*...which is rubbish!!! :mrgreen: )

African blackwood is wonderful stuff...if you want to splash out...hard as nails too...








Jim


----------



## woodbloke (20 Aug 2012)

i recommend Alf's tutorial (where is she btw?) on making LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles) The two chisels shown below:











...were made in English Walnut and to get a really nice sweep at the front, the smallest ferule that you can get away with should be used. The deep 'V' half way along was made with a skew turning chisel. This is another small handle (blade has been replaced though):






...in African Ebony. They are surprisingly easy to turn and really do look good when complete...any close grained, preferably heavy wood will do the job (except lilac :mrgreen: (hammer) ) and follow Alf's excellent instructions (where is she btw  ) - Rob


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Aug 2012)

I have a set of firmers by Marples bought (in B&Q of all places!) in the mid 1980's, with handles in Ash. They have taken a fearful beating with a mallet over the years, and stood up to it very well. I have a vintage mortice chisel with an Ash handle, and that survives OK as well, though I've no idea whether it's original or a replacement.

I think the octagonal London pattern handles really look best in boxwood. Everything else looks second best, like a guitar made of plywood. Exotics like rosewood can look very attractive, but have a reputation for being brittle if they see much mallet action. Carver pattern handles in beech or boxwood are quite traditional of course - and with good reason; experience has shown that they last well, provided they aren't abused with hammers. Lemonwood (aka degamé) has been suggested as a boxwood substitute, but I'm not sure how mallet-resistant it is.

In passing, the model engineers' suppliers (such as Folkestone Engineering Supplies and The College Engineering Supply) stock thick-walled brass tube in sizes like 1/2", 5/8" and 3/4". Something like 16swg wall thickness (that's about 1/16") would be far more substantial than commercial ferrules, and not prone to splitting as some commercial ones are. Not cheap, but a foot length of each will provide enough ferrule stock to last most woodworkers for their lifetime.


----------



## Klaus Kretschmar (20 Aug 2012)

DTR":3dk6ox4i said:


> Thank you for the replies so far.
> 
> Blandness isn't really a concern. As nice as some exotic handles would be, I'd rather use the wood I have than spend money on something else and still be left with some twisty iroko.
> 
> ...



The woodturner suppliers offer sanding sealers to fill the pores. I like to go with simple shellac that will be sanded wet. The sanding dust fills the pores. Pumice powder works as a filler nice as well.

Klaus


----------



## Jacob (20 Aug 2012)

You don't have to turn them. You can shape them with draw-knife, plane, axe, spokeshave, etc. All sorts of non turned but interesting shapes are possible. "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)" exist to_ sell_ tools but are otherwise utterly pointless.
Re finishing - these are working tools - "finish" not necessary. Tools for sale need to have "finish" to stop them geting grubby whilst on display etc but for your self "finish" is a complete waste of time.


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Aug 2012)

Jacob":3b0jdv4a said:


> "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)" exist to_ sell_ tools but are otherwise utterly pointless.



What a daft comment. Are you in a bad mood again, Jacob? :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Vann (20 Aug 2012)

Like the OP I have some chisel "irons" that need handles, and like the OP I have almost no turning experience. I like the looks of LPO handles, but I wonder about their practicality. I know one advantage is that the shape stops smaller sizes rolling off the workbench. But how do they feel in the hand?


Jacob":1p5vl2fn said:


> "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)" exist to_ sell_ tools but are otherwise utterly pointless.


 That's one opinion, but being Jacob's (and knowing that I need to take Jacob's opinions with a pinch of salt) it's probably bias. Can anyone else comment on the pros and cons of LPO handles?

Cheers, Vann.

(and where is Alf BTW)


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Aug 2012)

Vann":23qd86ou said:


> Can anyone else comment on the pros and cons of LPO handles?



Hi Vann, I don't own any but I've used some and found them very comfortable. I have some cheapo chisels with nasty handles and plan on replacing them, so I'll probably have a go at making some myself.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (20 Aug 2012)

Paul Chapman":380yny8b said:


> ...so I'll probably have a go at making some myself.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


...is the lathe set up and working? :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Aug 2012)

woodbloke":2rc0xmdm said:


> Paul Chapman":2rc0xmdm said:
> 
> 
> > ...so I'll probably have a go at making some myself.
> ...



Nearly. Can't rush these things......  :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (20 Aug 2012)

Paul Chapman":18yfi8o4 said:


> Jacob":18yfi8o4 said:
> 
> 
> > "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)" exist to_ sell_ tools but are otherwise utterly pointless.
> ...


Bad mood, moi? No not at all. All I am trying to say is that if you merely want to "chisel" with your chisel then fancy handles like the aforementioned "LPOH" convey no advantage whatsoever over many of the alternative shaped lumps of wood for handles.
Or to put it another way - if you want to do woodwork then the handles don't matter much. They do matter a bit of course, but not a lot.
Or to put it another way - fancy shapes may well be attractive, so might tie-died and embroidered woodwork aprons with macrame fringes, but they wouldn't have much bearing on your woodwork.

PS BTW does anybody else wear an embroidered smock or is it just me?


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Aug 2012)

Jacob":312ni136 said:


> All I am trying to say is that if you merely want to "chisel" with your chisel then fancy handles like the aforementioned "LPOH" convey no advantage whatsoever over many of the alternative shaped lumps of wood for handles.



Well, maybe some of us want to "chisel" a bit better with our chisels than you want to "chisel" with your chisels :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul

PS You've aged a bit :shock:


----------



## jimi43 (20 Aug 2012)

I think if you're into making soapboxes you can use any old chisel but if you appreciate art and form and you're not myopic enough to think that woodworking=furniture making....then I guess everyone has the right to own or make a chisel handle any freeking shape they want with any material they want just because they can. :roll: 

I think apart from not rolling off the bench...the octagonal pattern does feel better in the hand. I also think it looks good and for me, that is one component of my love for tools for tools sake. 8) 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2012)

The term "London Pattern" crops up all over the place. Does it mean anything, other than being a bit of commercial hype?

PS I see Derek asked the same question here, with one answer being to do with craft guilds and quality control.



> I guess everyone has the right to own or make a chisel handle any freeking shape they want with any material they want just because they can


Yes by all means, but don't imagine that fancy shapes have much to do with utility and usability - they are (were) added to sell tools.


----------



## Paul Chapman (21 Aug 2012)

Jacob":1k4u3st7 said:


> don't imagine that fancy shapes have much to do with utility and usability



Haven't you heard of ergonomics?

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2012)

Paul Chapman":3i9z1mj3 said:


> Jacob":3i9z1mj3 said:
> 
> 
> > don't imagine that fancy shapes have much to do with utility and usability
> ...


Nothing very ergonomic about "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)", which is my point.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Aug 2012)

Jacob":2ya17t0m said:


> The term "London Pattern" crops up all over the place. Does it mean anything, other than being a bit of commercial hype?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Commercial hype had nothing much to do with it. These things developed ages ago, when all regions of the country had their own patten tools, London pattern screw drivers, Warrington and Exeter pattern hammers, Lancashire pattern pincers etc. There were lots more but the ones that remain were the ones that stood the test of time regarding usefulness and practicality. So I suppose London pattern handles still exist because they are useful, attractive and practical in the right measures.

There is also a consensus of opinion that well made tools, those that instill some sort of pride in their owner, actually inspire the user to do their best work. Something more than the fact that the tools are well made in their functionality, but the way they look and feel just make you feel relaxed and happy and just simply make you raise your game over using a bit of tarnished, pitted steel with an ugly handle. I think some love old tools for the same reason; their perceived history instills a state of mind that inspires one to do thier best work. For others, it might be a brand new tool, made using the latest materials and technology that inspires them to do thier best. Others again like to make thair own tools, to give them something commercial offerings cannot. I personally have facets of all these in my character, in that I make some tools, own some useful oldies and some brand new ones. The ones I make are a bit more considered, though, than a bit of roughly hewn firewood hammered onto a bit of scrap iron from the reject pile. The tool has to perform well and look and feel good to make me work well.

What you have to realise, Jacob, is that this forum is populated by people who like hand tools and their enjoyment is more than just using them.
Mike.


----------



## bugbear (21 Aug 2012)

Jacob":ukgkmhpb said:


> ]Nothing very ergonomic about "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)", which is my point.



Was it?

Really?

Because this is the first time you've mentioned it.

One might justifiably suspect it's a retrospective attempt to justify yet another sour gripe against people who enjoy finely made tools.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (21 Aug 2012)

Two points in one post:

1 I think that the purpose of London Pattern handles is as a marker of quality - you'd expect a chisel with a handle like that to have a blade of the best steel, carefully made, accurately shaped. The handle says 'treat me with respect - I'm for fine cabinetwork, not for grubbing out old rotten windowsills.' Unsurprisingly, old catalogues show that tools with London Pattern handles were dearer than the ordinary lines.



2 I've made quite few handles, as a novice woodturner. My biggest mistake was to stop when I had got a decent finish all over but with the handle still too large. You have to get the diameter just right for your hands. A tiny bit too big and you get something much more tiring to hold. So I would advise that you find an existing handle which is comfortable for you, and copy it as closely as you can.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2012)

woodbrains":1w4ujp7l said:


> .....
> What you have to realise, Jacob, is that this forum is populated by people who like hand tools and their enjoyment is more than just using them.
> Mike.


What you have to realise Mike is that this forum is also populated by people who like using hand tools and their enjoyment is more than in just owning them. So ergonomic issues are as important to them as styles/fashions and knowing where one ends and the other begins is interesting.

Actually the chisel handle pattern which has stood the test of time more than any other is the plain, simple, vaguely carrot or thin barrel, sorta shape often found in box wood and various colours of plastic.

Nice to see people making ornamental handles - why not go the next step and start smocking your aprons? :lol: Actually I have got embroidery on mine- it says Axminster. I keep trying to pick it off.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Aug 2012)

AndyT":38o87e60 said:


> 2 I've made quite few handles, as a novice woodturner. My biggest mistake was to stop when I had got a decent finish all over but with the handle still too large. You have to get the diameter just right for your hands. A tiny bit too big and you get something much more tiring to hold. So I would advise that you find an existing handle which is comfortable for you, and copy it as closely as you can.



That's a very good point. Most commercial handles, especially for the smaller size chisels, are way too big.

For a general idea, the beech handle on my vintage 1/8" bevel-edged is 5 1/4" long including ferrule, and is 7/8" diameter at it's widest. The ferrule is 1/2" diameter and 1/2" long. The blade is 4 1/4", including the bolster. The whole chisel is light, balanced and lovely to use.


----------



## DTR (21 Aug 2012)

Jacob":12tpbopj said:


> So ergonomic issues are as important to them as styles/fashions and knowing where one ends and the other begins is interesting.
> 
> Actually the chisel handle pattern which has stood the test of time more than any other is the plain, simple, vaguely carrot or thin barrel, sorta shape often found in box wood and various colours of plastic.



It's already been stated in this thread that "the octagonal pattern does feel better in the hand". Obviously it's all subjective as no two pairs of hands are alike. As there are still original octagonal handles extant, and especially as chisels are intended to take a beating, I'd say that qualifies them as standing the test of time. Another factor that cannot be ruled out is that round handles are easier to mass produce than octagonal handles.

At the end of the day I expect that AndyT's comment is true and it's the size not the shape that is most important.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2012)

DTR":3jrjdmrv said:


> .... As there are still original octagonal handles extant,


Not many - I guess there weren't many to start with


> and especially as chisels are intended to take a beating,


Not the "LPOH (London Pattern Octagonal Handles)". They are totally unsuited for heavy work as the sides would shear above the neck. Maybe that's why there aren't many about.


----------



## DTR (21 Aug 2012)

Jacob":3sg2x0m7 said:


> Not many - I guess there weren't many to start with



Did you not see my comment about octagonal handles being harder to mass produce, or are you just ignoring it?



Jacob":3sg2x0m7 said:


> They are totally unsuited for heavy work as the sides would shear above the neck.



Why would they? If the sides taper into the neck it will be just as strong as a fully round handle.


----------



## AndyT (21 Aug 2012)

I've been to the workshop and had a look at some of the old chisels there. Unsurprisingly I found that the lighter chisels have more delicate handles. Ordinary bench firmers are a bit of a middle ground compromise. 

One clear difference is that with a chisel that will be gripped in the fist and hit with a mallet, (such as a joiner's mortice chisel) the length of the handle needs to be longer than the breadth of a man's hand. Otherwise you'd be malleting flesh, not wood. 

Pretty obvious really, but it's further proof that ergonomics is not a new idea and the many variations in tools were generally there for a good reason.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2012)

AndyT":16y2rrc5 said:


> ..... proof that ergonomics is not a new idea .....


started here, 1.8 million years ago:







Tool use even older but pre-ergonomics would have been found objects. I expect there would have been a paleo-ergonomic era when people were _choosing between_ found objects as tools, without getting around to shaping them to fit their little hairy hands.


----------



## Paul Chapman (21 Aug 2012)

Ah, those were the days, Jacob - none of your poncy wooden handles and honing guides for Neanderthal Man :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## jimi43 (22 Aug 2012)

Hey Rob...I tried the lilac on a LPOH...and it came out pretty good...






I have a nice little Sorby bevel edge chisel that has been in need of a new handle for simply ages...thanks for forcing me to get my act together!

BTW...before you say it...I don't like the long thin variety! :mrgreen: :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Klaus Kretschmar (22 Aug 2012)

Jacob":2sfoyzup said:


> AndyT":2sfoyzup said:
> 
> 
> > ..... proof that ergonomics is not a new idea .....
> ...



If that was 1.8 million years ago we should be glad that the mankind didn't stop the toolmaking development. 

To be honest: the Victorian pride of toolmaking is something, the British people should be very proud on. It's a centurys aged tradition that carries tons of culture. Jacob, your ancistors didn't build outstandingly designed tools just for commercial success, as I think. They did their very best to create tools that were functionally, ergonomically and lookswise the best they could do. And they influenced toolmakers all over the world with their fantastic work. 

I'm deeply convinced that any user of a nicely crafted tool will appreciate it and moreover will be inspired to use it the best way he can. In former times as well as now. 

Cheers
Klaus


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2012)

Klaus Kretschmar":3t4xg6s3 said:


> .....If that was 1.8 million years ago we should be glad that the mankind didn't stop the toolmaking development.


The move from "stone" to "deliberately shaped and sharpened stone" was the single most important design development in human history.


> To be honest: the Victorian pride of toolmaking is something, the British people should be very proud on. It's a centurys aged tradition that carries tons of culture. Jacob, your ancistors didn't build outstandingly designed tools just for commercial success, as I think. They did their very best to create tools that were functionally, ergonomically and lookswise the best they could do. And they influenced toolmakers all over the world with their fantastic work.
> 
> I'm deeply convinced that any user of a nicely crafted tool will appreciate it and moreover will be inspired to use it the best way he can. In former times as well as now.
> 
> ...


Yes of course I agree with that. But there is much more to good design than decorative details such as found on certain tool handles, however finely crafted. In fact this is a fundamental theme in the history of modern design as a whole - Modernism being largely an attempt to separate "good design" from mere decoration.
Good read - "The Roots of Modern Design" Herwin Schaefer - has much about the engineering and tool making origins of Modernism and the movement away from decoration, going well back in history.
Yes I do think that fancy tool handles are decorative, often commercial and not necessarily functional.


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2012)

Jacob":2z1h80vv said:


> Yes I do think that fancy tool handles are decorative, often commercial and not necessarily functional.



You must find the carved planes of Northern European workers completely beyond your understanding.

Some people like beautiful things - apparently you don't.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2012)

bugbear":24mo9lgu said:


> .....
> Some people like beautiful things - apparently you don't.
> 
> BugBear


Nonsense. I just think that people shouldn't desperately seek justification for decoration on the grounds of utility - they should recognise it for what it is, whether it's a London pattern chisel handle or a curly saw handle.
Nothing wrong with decoration if you can afford it or the time to do it.
On the other hand modernism is about beauty in simplicity and plain utility. Though there is nothing modern about it - vernacular stuff from the earliest times has often been plain and simple. Tends to get overlooked - people recognise Shaker stuff for what it is (having been told) but don't see it in their own environment when the same sort of simplicity and beauty is found.


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2012)

Jacob":147n8yfz said:


> bugbear":147n8yfz said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Sounds more like minimalism than modernism.

Personally, I'd prefer a Lutyens home to a Corbusier one.

BugBear


----------



## kirkpoore1 (22 Aug 2012)

Jacob":19y3gjsr said:


> bugbear":19y3gjsr said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Although I can see your point, Jacob, I believe you are leaving out the human element. People tend to treat good looking objects with more care. If it looks well made and expensive, most folks will ensure it gets used, cleaned, sharpened, and put away more often than if it's an old beater. If it looks good on the outside, people will assume the quality is better in the absence of other information. This second point shouldn't apply after you know your own tools, of course, but the first point will kick in at least subconsciously for most folks.

Kirk
who needs to make some handles, particularly file handles...


----------



## woodbloke (24 Aug 2012)

jimi43":1a997pkj said:


> Hey Rob...I tried the lilac on a LPOH...and it came out pretty good...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice Jim, but I threw all my lilac away 'cos it was rubbish...full of splits and gnarly bits - Rob


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Aug 2012)

Just a small tip I've remembered concerning LPOH; make sure the ends of the octagonal section are well chamfered, especially at the hand-hold end of the handle. I had some commercial ones years ago that didn't have any chamfer at the ends of the octagonal bit, and oh boy did they dig into the palms when paring. Easily cured with a few small chisel cuts, but better incorporated at the turning stage.


----------



## bugbear (25 Aug 2012)

I've been asked how to disassemble an Aristocrat chisel.

A quick trip to the workshop later...

Since the bar is simply threaded at each end, it simply unscrews.In my 1" example, the threads are 5/16 BSF.

Mine came undone quite easily, but if things are tight, I would recommend holding the blade in a vice, and putting a jubillee clip round the handle to provide traction for rotation.

Jubillee clips provide MASSIVE grip on round items, whilst using perfectly symmetric force. Trying to hold the hollow handle in a vice would run the risk of crushing it if you were a bit heavy handed.

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (2 Sep 2012)

My lad has been showing an interest, so I made a smaller handle for his rasp out of a bit of boxwood. With this and the two beautiful mallets that James made for him, his toolkit is starting to look better than mine!

Going back to the original post, handle timbers should ideally be tough rather than brittle and harder than your mallet - much cheaper and easier to get a new mallet than new chisel handles. The traditional timbers like ash, box, beech, sycamore (maple), all work well. Oak and Chestnut are not so good because they have a lot of tannin and are likely to stain black in contact with iron. If you want to get a bit fancier, sapele, ebony, bubinga, teak, rosewood, purpleheart, laburnum etc will give you a nice selection of colours a la Alf. One that isn't commonly used, but would in theory be ideal, is elm - beautiful figure and tough as old boots.

I look forward to seeing the results!


----------



## condeesteso (2 Sep 2012)

Good list Matthew... can I propose hornbeam? Not pretty but technically a very good material for handles (and gears in mills etc).


----------



## No skills (2 Sep 2012)

What about hickory?? seems to be used a lot in hammer handles, looks pretty boring tho.


----------



## jimi43 (2 Sep 2012)

Wych elm Matthew!






The spider's web of the galaxy!

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (4 Sep 2012)

jimi43":kjjj4xtk said:


> Wych elm Matthew!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a nice lump of elm Jim. The reason that it's so good for handles is that it's very difficult to split, so it's going to resist belting with a maul quite well. Btw, that's *far* too nice a piece for a handle...I think it ought to be donated towards my next cabinet :-" :mrgreen: :lol: which could be in elm, or walnut (I have a small stash :mrgreen: ) or maybe oak? - Rob


----------



## Modernist (4 Sep 2012)

bugbear":4j584gn4 said:


> Personally, I'd prefer a Lutyens home to a Corbusier one.
> 
> BugBear



Surely not, how would you fend off the depression? Go forth into the light.


----------



## bugbear (4 Sep 2012)

Modernist":1a98v93i said:


> bugbear":1a98v93i said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'd prefer a Lutyens home to a Corbusier one.
> ...



The accompanying Gertrude Jekyll garden, of course!

May as well dream big...

BugBear


----------



## jimi43 (4 Sep 2012)

woodbloke":2w3m2e8n said:


> That's a nice lump of elm Jim. The reason that it's so good for handles is that it's very difficult to split, so it's going to resist belting with a maul quite well. Btw, that's *far* too nice a piece for a handle...I think it ought to be donated towards my next cabinet :-" :mrgreen: :lol: which could be in elm, or walnut (I have a small stash :mrgreen: ) or maybe oak? - Rob



I'm pretty sure I have used up all that piece now...otherwise you would have been welcome to it for one of your masterpieces Rob.

Let me see if I can contact my supplier who gave me that piece and see if he has any more...I believe he just might...he had about 80 tons of storm damaged wood the last time I spoke to him...from 1987 ( :mrgreen: ) so it should almost be dry by now! :wink: 

I have to get some more myself anyway so I'll let you know.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (4 Sep 2012)

jimi43":2w31oco4 said:


> woodbloke":2w31oco4 said:
> 
> 
> > That's a nice lump of elm Jim. The reason that it's so good for handles is that it's very difficult to split, so it's going to resist belting with a maul quite well. Btw, that's *far* too nice a piece for a handle...I think it ought to be donated towards my next cabinet :-" :mrgreen: :lol: which could be in elm, or walnut (I have a small stash :mrgreen: ) or maybe oak? - Rob
> ...


The comment was made in jest Jim :lol: ...you should know that by now :mrgreen: Seriously, elm is one of my favourites and I especially like the wych elm because of that lovely green colouration that seems to run through the boards. I've got one or two bits with that sort of colouration in the grain which I try and use to good effect - Rob


----------

