Preservation or Utilisation? Antique Tools

[Cheshirechappie]

Another thing that changed the tool marketplace after WW2 was the rise of the DIY market, which hadn't really existed before. That created a demand for cheaper tools. Combined with the rise of the power tool and consequent decline in the demand for high quality handtools, manufacturers were pretty well forced to drop quality to satisfy the cheaper, growing market for DIY quality tools. Indeed, quality had dropped so much by the early 1980s that a niche opened up for small volume high-end toolmakers, who together with a few surviving quality makers such as Henry Taylor, Ashley Iles, Joseph Marples, Thomas Flinn, Crown Tools, and Footprint make up the current picture.

 

[shed9]

where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield.

I personally very much doubt that although I'm happy to proven otherwise.

Whilst I agree most available pre WW2 tooling is generally considered better than post war in that general era, I also suspect that is generally a case of the better tooling of the era surviving down to perceived value.

With the usual boutique exceptions, manufacturers have and always will sell the most cost effective product they can get away with regardless of medieval guilds or trade associations.

If anything has driven down quality it is the global market and the sheer quantity and disposable aspect that brings not guilds, however when comparing like for like, i.e. well made pre WW2 tools comparative to modern well made tools this argument is moot in my opinion.

Just my £0.02

 

[Vann]

Just my £0.02

Hang on, that's more than your share. Tuppence is slightly less than £0.01 :mrgreen:

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jelly]

where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield.

I personally very much doubt that although I'm happy to proven otherwise.

Very much true, if you read about the history of 'the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire' who by act of parliament were made the legal regulators of the cutlery and toolmaking trades in Sheffield in 1624, gaining also the steelmaking trade in 1860.

The company had (has?) legal jurisdiction to prevent unlicensed persons trading, deny the issue of trademarks, and to prevent the use of the word "Sheffield" on products or in company names which it deems inappropriate (by way of geography, or poor quality).

It was of course, put in place to help collect taxes from the tradesmen, but rapidly became a trade body and used its regulatory powers to ensure the standing of the city (and thus its own name) with regards to quality.

 

[Rhyolith]

My own experience at car boots, plus speaking to a fair number of craftsman (mostly woodworkers), plus the information Andy and Cheshirechappie have shared makes me pretty confident that hand tools were better in the past then they are now in terms of quality. It will take some pretty strong evidence to convince me otherwise, at minimum some examples of poor quality old tools pre WW2.

With the usual boutique exceptions, manufacturers have and always will sell the most cost effective product they can get away with regardless of medieval guilds or trade associations.

As Cheshirechappie said, there was not a market for tools that did not work prior to the arrival of recent mass consumerism in the DIY sector. If companies wanted to make a profit they would have had to make tools that worked, hence the most cost effective means for a tool company to make money would have been to make quality functional tools. The fact their were guilds as well solidifies this in a pretty air tight manner as far as I can see.

If anything has driven down quality it is the global market and the sheer quantity and disposable aspect that brings not guilds, however when comparing like for like, i.e. well made pre WW2 tools comparative to modern well made tools this argument is moot in my opinion.

There has been a notably increase in the number of tools so rubbish that they are essentially disposable within the last decade, let alone all the way back to WW2. As said before the market now is dominated by hobbyists and wanna be DIY-ers who wouldn't be willing to pay the amount that is needed for decent quality. Today companies just pump out stuff that looks good and advertises well, the quality barely matters.

There are examples of modern tools that easily match their Pre-WW2 counterparts, but these are defiantly exceptions oppose to a common tendency.

 

[Bedrock]

Perhaps not entirely related to the original OP, but from time to time, I go to the Edward Barnsley open days (twice a year and much to be recommended), near Petersfield, Hampshire.
I have never counted, but amongst the apprentices, there always seem to be a fair cross-section of older Record/Stanley planes, usually with a replacement, thicker blade, LVs, LNs, and Cliftons, ditto chisels, LVs, LNs, Henry Taylor, Sorby and the better older makes.
Maybe these days, apprentices with fine woodworking companies are drawn from wider backgrounds, and thus are not limited to the cheaper end of the market, new or second hand? After all, if you are willing to spend what to me seems an eye-watering amount on a tablet, mobile phone (and monthly bill) or other piece of electronic kit, the price of the current higher end offerings, don't seem so expensive.

 

[Corneel]

At the other hand, when you count the number of broken chisels and plane blades in the Seaton chest, you get the idea that quality control was not at its best at the end of the 18th century. From memory (I don't have the book here) 5 out of some 35 bench chisels were broken, split or cracked in a manner that points me in the direction of poor manufacturing instead of rough use. Stanley would be embarrased with a failure rate like that, even today. The same goes for the plane blades, quite a few of them have cracks. The moulding planes are made of very poor beech with knots and cracks. But the saws are very good.

This is of course just one example, but it sure shows that not EVERY old tool was made to exacting standards.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

At the other hand, when you count the number of broken chisels and plane blades in the Seaton chest, you get the idea that quality control was not at its best at the end of the 18th century. From memory (I don't have the book here) 5 out of some 35 bench chisels were broken, split or cracked in a manner that points me in the direction of poor manufacturing instead of rough use. Stanley would be embarrased with a failure rate like that, even today. The same goes for the plane blades, quite a few of them have cracks. The moulding planes are made of very poor beech with knots and cracks. But the saws are very good.

This is of course just one example, but it sure shows that not EVERY old tool was made to exacting standards.

Agreed.

I recall reading a blog post by (I think) Adam Cherubini, who had gone to great lengths to acquire as many late 18th and early 19th century tools as he could find. He noted that there was considerable variation in the ease of sharpening and edge-holding of the chisels, some sharpening very quickly but not holding their edge for long, and some t'other way about. All took a very sharp edge, though. Given the methods of manufacture of the steel, and the methods of heat treatment, using the skill and judgement of the workmen concerned, I suppose it's not in the least surprising. In general, some inconsistency was always present whilst such methods persisted. In the case of heat treatment, it lasted until after WW2, though steel quality became gradually more consistent through the 19th century, and by WW1 was quite scientifically well understood and controlled. That shows in the tools.

One thing you generally can't criticise modern tools for is inconsistency of tool steel quality or heat treatment quality. The best tend to be uniformly good, and indifferent tools tend to be uniformly less good. Other aspects of design and manufacture are another matter entirely!

 

[Rhyolith]

One thing you generally can't criticise modern tools for is inconsistency of tool steel quality or heat treatment quality. The best tend to be uniformly good, and indifferent tools tend to be uniformly less good. Other aspects of design and manufacture are another matter entirely!

Yes.

There are 99 terrible modern hand tools to every 1 good one, thats my opinion summed up really. It does not discount the existence of decent modern tools, just that there are relatively few of them.

-----

Another thing bringing the thread slightly back on topic: Logos on old tools, they are relatively rare to see intact and its a threat when you find something with the original log intact. This is probably the most common dilemma I have on this topic due to one particular drill, my Millers Falls No.200.
Miller Falls No.200 by Rhyolith, on Flickr
Its the best functional Breast Drill I own, but it also has a almost completely intact Millers Falls Logo on it. I want to use it because it works so well, but I also don't want to risk losing the beautiful old (and original) finish. This is kinda the collector in me vs the craftsman, indeed I think that sums up the debate on this whole topic fairly well. Ask a tool collector, they will say "preserve it", ask a craftsman and they will say "Use it".

So is the original finish worth preserving? Logos especially.

 

[Jelly]

With something like that I'd be tempted to use a clear resin to protect the original finish, as a pragmatic middle ground.

 

[ED65]

Jelly beat me to it, that could be a good candidate for protecting with a clear finish if you want to ensure it's more resistant to bumps or scrapes. However then you run into the problem of what to use, because the clear finish has to be easily reversible. And thinking about it, to not damage the decal in the first place!

My first thought was shellac, but I have no idea if alcohol poses a risk to the decal itself. My guess is it might. The best candidate I can think of is not something used in woodworking circles: a LMW varnish that will stay soluble in mild solvents. But as far as I know those are only sold for picture varnishing.

But to be honest I think a careful owner could just use this tool with care given the siting of the decal. I don't visualise any normal use of the drill that would tend to rub that area (probably the reason it's still in good shape to start with) so I don't think it would take any particular effort to baby it in use.

 

[RogerP]

What about this? It says " The perfect sealer to protect your furniture decals."

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CLEAR-MAT...RE-/301652441563?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368

 

[Rhyolith]

I had wondered about vanish or the like for these sitautions, thanks for the suggestions on that front My finishing skills are not great though, only a hand full of my full restoration projects involving painting or vanishing have gone well :shock: so I am generally put off this cause of action until master it.

What ED says eases my mind somewhat, use is not the main threat to the finish due to where it is makes sense. Its probably the case that most of the tools with missing finishes are as they are due to being in big piles of other tools (in boxes at car boots etc) and clashing about like that, oppose to being used.

I suppose I always have the photos if the worst comes to the worst

 

[ED65]

What about this? It says " The perfect sealer to protect your furniture decals."

What the heck is a furniture decal?

Anyway old decals won't be the same as many or all modern ones, virtually guaranteed. This becomes more and more likely the older the tool is.

As to that varnish, my bet would be it's either an acrylic solution or uralkyd, in either case strong solvents are needed to remove after a full cure. And with oil-based varnishes especially this gets worse as they age and deteriorate so it's a big concern if you have your eye on the long term.