Chisel quality ?
- Thread starter Trigs
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
bridger":2tsvkogs said:
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Very roughly speaking, the older the tools, the more likelihood of some variability.
Most woodworkers seem to develop a fondness for certain tools; that may be down to all sorts of factors, such as comfort in the hand, being a particularly useful size, having some family history or whatever. It could well be that some tools have just the right balance between sharpenability and edge retention that suits particular people. When I read of some makes being panned because 'they don't hold an edge', there's a slight niggling thought that the tool might not be doing what it's intended for; for example, using a thin bevel-edged chisel with a lowish bevel angle for heavy chopping and then complaining that the steel is brittle. Admittedly, I haven't used a huge number of chisels (maybe about a hundred, and most of those not very extensively), but I don't recall ever coming across a real dud. Using a suitable bevel angle for the work in hand cures most problems, I find.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I suspect you can't please all the people all the time. I had a set of rhubarb and custard Marples given to me for a 15th birthday present (47 yrs ago). I remember a few years later reading a test in the ww press that concluded they were too hard - my only cricicism was that were too soft. Maybe I had an odd set.
No skills
Established Member
I have some of those marples, although 20 odd years old rather than near 50 
Don't remember them being particularly soft, they did take a good edge from what I remember - better than the modern bashing chisels i own.
Stone me I really need to sort out my chisels :shock:
Don't remember them being particularly soft, they did take a good edge from what I remember - better than the modern bashing chisels i own.Stone me I really need to sort out my chisels :shock:
JimB
Established Member
My set of blue chip are much older than that and are the chisels I automatically turn to.CStanford":1osweq82 said:
JimB
Established Member
When the blue chips came out, didn't they make a point of hardness testing them all. I remember the small indentation on mine showing this had been done.
bugbear
Established Member
JimB":33vnwupy said:
I recall the advert telling you to look for the witness mark, but I'm not sure the brand was Marples.
BugBear
memzey
Established Member
That's a really interesting and informative set of responses thank you. Bridger your explanation of how QC was conducted is a bit of an eye opener as well. For what it's worth when I consider the ~50 vintage chisels I have and am familiar with (all wooden handled, all made in England, most cast steel) I must say that I haven't had a dud amongst them. I can say with some certainty though that in my experience the Ward chisels seem to have the best balance between taking an edge and keeping one. They are just a bit better than the best of the rest (which in my experience includes those that BB lists above plus Addis, Colonel and Melhuish).
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Robert Sorby used to advertise that their chisels were all tested for hardness, at least they did in the 1980s and 1990s. I'm not sure whether other makers used this advertising point, though I'm quite sure most of them would have tested at least samples of their output.
Ashley Iles writes in his autobiography (Memories of a Sheffield Toolmaker) about practices around the time of WW2, just before the great changes that swept away the old ways. The 'little mester' system of independent self-employed workers allowed a man to set up as a manufacturer with nothing more than a name-stamp and a front room in his house to store his stock. He would take a batch of steel to the hammer-man, and ask for a gross of bevel-edged firmers (or whatever). He would then take the blanks to the grinder for rough shaping, and then the hardener, where the gross became 143 as the hardener broke one on his anvil; examining the fracture would tell him all he needed about the success of his hardening. (This rather bears out Bridger's comments about QC being 'analogue' rather than 'digital'.) Any suggestion to the hardener of metallurgists' instructions for heating and quenching would be met by a terse, "You don't want to be listening to them silly b*ggers, lad!". The hardened and tempered blanks would then return to the grinder for finish grinding and glazing, and finally to the edge-tool cutler for handle fitting. At each stage, the 'manufacturer' would reckon up with the supplier in cash at the end of the week; there were agreed Union rates for each operation.
The bigger firms had their own hammer-men, grinders and hardeners, but they also let work out to independents in times of high demand and for some lines for which they didn't have the tooling or particular skills. There was a chap in Sheffield who made nothing but gimlets; he only retired in his nineties. Iles also wrote about how the hardeners were the lynch-pin of many firms; one small firm sent out a batch of soft chisels, and three months later he attended their clearance auction. Their reputation was destroyed by that one batch.
Thus, it can readily be seen how some variability in tools was inevitable in the 'old days'. With the move to more modern methods using temperature-controlled hardening furnaces and tempering baths, together with hardness testing using instruments rather than visual inspection of fractures, products are more consistent.
Ashley Iles writes in his autobiography (Memories of a Sheffield Toolmaker) about practices around the time of WW2, just before the great changes that swept away the old ways. The 'little mester' system of independent self-employed workers allowed a man to set up as a manufacturer with nothing more than a name-stamp and a front room in his house to store his stock. He would take a batch of steel to the hammer-man, and ask for a gross of bevel-edged firmers (or whatever). He would then take the blanks to the grinder for rough shaping, and then the hardener, where the gross became 143 as the hardener broke one on his anvil; examining the fracture would tell him all he needed about the success of his hardening. (This rather bears out Bridger's comments about QC being 'analogue' rather than 'digital'.) Any suggestion to the hardener of metallurgists' instructions for heating and quenching would be met by a terse, "You don't want to be listening to them silly b*ggers, lad!". The hardened and tempered blanks would then return to the grinder for finish grinding and glazing, and finally to the edge-tool cutler for handle fitting. At each stage, the 'manufacturer' would reckon up with the supplier in cash at the end of the week; there were agreed Union rates for each operation.
The bigger firms had their own hammer-men, grinders and hardeners, but they also let work out to independents in times of high demand and for some lines for which they didn't have the tooling or particular skills. There was a chap in Sheffield who made nothing but gimlets; he only retired in his nineties. Iles also wrote about how the hardeners were the lynch-pin of many firms; one small firm sent out a batch of soft chisels, and three months later he attended their clearance auction. Their reputation was destroyed by that one batch.
Thus, it can readily be seen how some variability in tools was inevitable in the 'old days'. With the move to more modern methods using temperature-controlled hardening furnaces and tempering baths, together with hardness testing using instruments rather than visual inspection of fractures, products are more consistent.
Trafalgar
Established Member
JimB":nyhsm0tq said:
No doubt they have a long history of reliability and affordability.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
My post disappeared. Ye Gods - I've just seen the second hand price of the Ashley Isles book!!! :shock:
bugbear
Established Member
phil.p":3ferbvty said:
Can't be worse than British Planemakers, 3rd edition. :-(
I keep waiting for the rumoured 4th edition to come out - more information, lower price.
'cos I aint' paying the s/h price for a 3rd edition.
BugBear
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
I've just checked price of Ashley Iles' book. Blimey. Glad I bought my copy when it was first published - 1993.
I use BPM2, which I accept is not as up to date as 3. However, at that price, I also think 3 is out of the question!
If nothing else, it proves there's a thirst for high quality woodworking knowledge. I don't suppose the books telling you how to make bird-boxes and table place-mats will ever command secondhand prices like those.
I use BPM2, which I accept is not as up to date as 3. However, at that price, I also think 3 is out of the question!
If nothing else, it proves there's a thirst for high quality woodworking knowledge. I don't suppose the books telling you how to make bird-boxes and table place-mats will ever command secondhand prices like those.
JimB
Established Member
That's why it hurts so much when you come across garbage with a famous name once synonymous with reliability.CStanford":209cc8bn said:
