millwright mortise chisel questions. [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

joel cervera

01-27-2012, 1:28 AM

Hello. Newb here..

I have been slowly putting together a basic set of mortise chisels and opting for the advice of Mr Smalser have thus purchased these three. The thinnest with light colored handle and the middle on in the attached images are witherby ( winsted edge tool works) 1/4 and 1/2 inch respectively. The thickest of the three is a 3/8 inch beast which has no hooped handle but is a massively thick chisel. purchased from our favorite auction site. Its a W.Greaves and is a very old chisel.

Of the three the 1/4 incher is most charachteristically an old millwright mortise chisel. The 1/2 seems to fall in line as well. But that 3/8 is an odd one. I wonder if it could have been intended for slightly different use originally??

also of these the 1/2 inch has a nice flat back running nearly the length of the whole blade. The 1/4 incher curves up slightly near the edge giving a slighlty crowned back and the 3/8 is crowned so bad I am having a hard time determining a good way to flatten it. You can see how bad it is in the picture . I slapped some 60 grit down on my granite surface plate and it laughed at me after 15 minutes of feverish lapping.

Howw do these chisels get such a convex back? and how flat should the back be on a mortise chisel ? Seems like pretty flat to me so as to give me a straight sided mortise? Ergo Does anyone know of a good way to hasten the flattening of such a heavy chisel.. I have a Baldor 6 inch high speed with norton cool white wheel on it. I have considered maybe using it but I am not so sure. Belt sander?? Anything else I should consider?

Thanks.

Joel.
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7816/009bk.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/009bk.jpg/)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1316/008slf.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/008slf.jpg/)

Mike Holbrook

01-27-2012, 3:11 AM

I ran a thread called Chisels I can go ahead and whack, below on this page, that discusses these kinds of chisels. Many chisels are heat treated and then sharpened such that the backs of the chisels are concave. Chisels with convex backs are limited to junky chisels and if you find a convex back on a good new chisel it may be grounds for returning it. The point is it is "normal" for chisels to have slightly concave backs. You do not need and may not want to grind this concave profile out of the back of most chisels. You can "flatten" the back of the chisel without grinding out the entire profile of the back. Leaving the back a little concave prevents you from ending up with a harder to flatten level or counter productive convex back.

Chris Vandiver

01-27-2012, 3:36 AM

The 1/4" and the 3/8" chisels are actually firmer chisels and not mortise chisels. The 3/8" Greaves is a sash mortise chisel(socketed). The convex back is probably caused from repeated incorrect lapping of the back. You can still make it work, as a mortise chisel though. Just try and get a flat going back from the tip for an inch or so. After you have created the flat(land), as long as you can predictably remove the wire edge when sharpening(honing), you'll be okay. The only place you will really notice the curvature is when you reach the ends of a mortise. Because of the curvature, you'll have to tilt the chisel forward or back to create square ends in the depth of the mortise. All of your chisels look fine to me and they're certainly not junk. Some work is required but they'll be great.

By the way, does the Greaves have a bit on the blade(forge laminated cutting edge)? If it's really old, it should be a laminated blade.

Mike Holbrook

01-27-2012, 10:47 AM

Joel I did not mean to imply anything about the chisels you have. I was just talking about general rules of thumb in original chisel construction. If you look at the back of most Japanese chisels you will see a relatively pronounced concave profile that is part of their design. As Chris mentions if your chisels actually have a side to side concave shape chances are someone messed them up as they usually are not made that way. My understanding of why many old chisels are curved front to back has to do with them being struck repeatedly against hard wood and then often used to pry wood out of joints like mortises.

This is one reason I am looking at chisels designed to be whacked vs just whacking away at my Ashley Isles and taking the chance of bending up the blades or cracking the handles of chisels I intend to use more for paring. Are Millwright chisels ones used by pattern makers or old furniture makers to pound out joints quickly? I am more familiar with the terms Timber Framing Chisel and Firmer Chisel. The Timber Framers are very large heavy chisels, sometimes called slicks I believe, that are/were used for work like post & beam framing joints. The Firmers, as I understand it, are more used for the heavier chisel work in general cabinet construction and furniture making. The thread I ran has been running quiet a while, largely I think, because there is a good deal of gray area in the firmer chisel arena and a multitude of different ways to use the same tools to accomplish given joint construction.

My current chisel strategy, gleaned from the thread I ran, is to collect two different sets of chisels. One set will be more slender delicate bevel edged chisels sharpened with sharper bevels to better enable them to do paring chores. The other set will have handles designed to be struck and beefier blades. Within the heavier set I will have a pig sticker type chisel or two specifically designed to pry wood and get hammered without bending. I am working on at least two different mallets, at least one heavier and one lighter, both with heads designed not to mar chisel handles.

I will also have one or two in my paring set, designed more like butt chisels 1 1/2 to 2" wide. These chisels will do large paring jobs and define the edges of joints, saw lines and dadoes.

Zach Dillinger

01-27-2012, 10:55 AM

joel cervera

01-27-2012, 12:51 PM

Chris.. Yes in fact the greaves is definitely laminated.
For clarification The 1/4 and and 1/2 witherbys are firmers, you say. Is there an approximate length Witherby Firmers would run? the three of these chisels show all are between 15 and 16 inches long ( with the handles taking up between 4 to 4.5 inches of that ). Does 15 inches long also correspond to being a sash mortise chisel?

Thanks,

Joel.

joel cervera

01-27-2012, 1:09 PM

Well.. I went back to the magazine with Bob Smalser's article on chisels. Here is evidence to say ( at least as far as Smalser is concerned) that these are Millwright mortise ( well, at least the witherbys) The Greaves makes those Witherbys look weak, in comparison.. What do you think?

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9617/003buh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/003buh.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Joel.

Mike Holbrook

01-27-2012, 1:26 PM

Joel, yes it is a little confusing.

The lighter duty paring chisels and sometimes even the heavier duty chisels came in at least two different lengths, three counting butt chisels, usually the shortest of the shorts. Some people prefer chisels with longer bodies or handles for paring, some companies, like Henry Taylor, still offer longer firmer chisels too. I think you will find that there is a large variety of different lengths these chisels were offered in over the years. Add to that fact another fact, which is many of these older chisels are on their second, third...handle. These chisels, particularly the socket chisels, were designed to be easy to rehandle. No telling what some wood worker a century ago decided to make to replace his broken chisel handle. You will see many chisels with bent up sockets because some user was to lazy to replace the handle.

Handle and chisel body length is one of those constantly changing preferences. You are right about the heavier of the heavy duty chisels usually having longer bodies as they were designed to do larger work, unless someone was to lazy to make a handle and the chisel got used without a handle or with an abnormally short handle...Relax, take your time, you want figure out all about chisels in one post, one magazine article or even one book. The subject is a long one with may twists & turns.

joel cervera

01-27-2012, 1:56 PM

Mike.

to be truthful, I dont much care to learn about all the chisel types and lengths and specs. etc . I just wanted some info specific to Millwright mortise chisels as my original post stated. I have here two chisels that someone (who presumably knows more than I, called firmers). If thats the case i'll use them differently than I would a Millwright mortise chisel, which is made to chop out mortises all day long in a factory. the article I referenced seems to indicate differently than two previous posters so I just wanted some clarification To be honest is seems clear to me these three chisels are mortising chisels but I welcome opinons on the subject.

thanks for the reply.

Joel.

Joel, yes it is a little confusing.

The lighter duty paring chisels and sometimes even the heavier duty chisels came in at least two different lengths, three counting butt chisels, usually the shortest of the shorts. Some people prefer chisels with longer bodies or handles for paring, some companies, like Henry Taylor, still offer longer firmer chisels too. I think you will find that there is a large variety of different lengths these chisels were offered in over the years. Add to that fact another fact, which is many of these older chisels are on their second, third...handle. These chisels, particularly the socket chisels, were designed to be easy to rehandle. No telling what some wood worker a century ago decided to make to replace his broken chisel handle. You will see many chisels with bent up sockets because some user was to lazy to replace the handle.

Handle and chisel body length is one of those constantly changing preferences. You are right about the heavier of the heavy duty chisels usually having longer bodies as they were designed to do larger work, unless someone was to lazy to make a handle and the chisel got used without a handle or with an abnormally short handle...Relax, take your time, you want figure out all about chisels in one post, one magazine article or even one book. The subject is a long one with may twists & turns.

Joe Fabbri

01-27-2012, 2:30 PM

221473221474

Hi,

I bought this 1/2 millwright's chisel a little while ago, and I posted similar questions regarding the curvature of the back. From what some said on here, a lot of these old chisels had convex backs. It may have been from chopping a lot of mortises, specifically from the prying up action (since you typically pry foward). It was also said, though, that it may have been manufactured with the convex shape, possibly to allow a relief in the back, in order not to blow past the ends of the mortise.

It seems this could make sense, if the mortise was roughly chopped, and then perhaps the ends pared down a little to clean it up.

But it's hard to say. I don't think my convex bottom was created from improper flattening, because the top of the chisel concavity seems to correspond. So, either it's from beind pryed upon, or it was manufactured that way. It's possible it was also not manufactured very well either, since I assume that tools intended for rougher work weren't scrutinized when it came to the flatness of their backs.

Joe

joel cervera

01-27-2012, 2:53 PM

Joe,

I have thought it more than once that these chisels may have been made that way (convex). The beefiest and oldest of my three has so much metal on it sometimes seems unlikely that a dished out stone could produce such a severe crown ( even over decades of lapping on a badly dished stone. Like I said earlier in this post even with 60 grit sand paper it would days of work methinks to get iteven somewhat flat.

your chisel is beefy like I would expect from a mortise chisel. My 1/2 and 1/4 inch witherbys are somewht slender compared. Thats why I thought perhaps they were firmers but then I looked at the smalser article again and my 1/4 incher looks identical to his Millwright shown (photo posted above)

221473221474

Hi,

I bought this 1/2 millwright's chisel a little while ago, and I posted similar questions regarding the curvature of the back. From what some said on here, a lot of these old chisels had convex backs. It may have been from chopping a lot of mortises, specifically from the prying up action (since you typically pry foward). It was also said, though, that it may have been manufactured with the convex shape, possibly to allow a relief in the back, in order not to blow past the ends of the mortise.

It seems this could make sense, if the mortise was roughly chopped, and then perhaps the ends pared down a little to clean it up.

But it's hard to say. I don't think my convex bottom was created from improper flattening, because the top of the chisel concavity seems to correspond. So, either it's from beind pryed upon, or it was manufactured that way. It's possible it was also not manufactured very well either, since I assume that tools intended for rougher work weren't scrutinized when it came to the flatness of their backs.

Joe

Chris Vandiver

01-27-2012, 7:11 PM

Joel,

Regardless of what the published name implies, I wouldn't want to use your 1/4" and 3/8" Witherbys for mortising. Just too thin.

Mike Holbrook

01-27-2012, 7:43 PM

Joel, sorry if I gave a long answer when you wanted a short one. At least in my mind, the problem is there is no short, simple answer to questions that make assumptions that may or may not be true. Simple answer to how do you flatten the back of a chisel is... you don't, at least in the way you are thinking. I thought that sounded a little rude so I tried to embellish it, sorry ;-)

Mark Twain once said something to the effect that he wanted to write a short speech but he did not have the time so he had to write a long one, often the case here.

joel cervera

01-27-2012, 7:54 PM

NO worries Mike
Surely your comments are appreciated. I just wanted to stay on topic and do my best to collect as much info on these 3 chisels as I could. With regard to flattening the back I know in terms of getting sharp it doesnt take much flattening especially if you could use the ruler trick, like i do on plane irons. . But that 3/8 Greaves has such a big belly I wondered how it would serve chopping out a mortise ( especially seeing as how I have not used it to make a mortise yet.

Again Thanks. for your reply.

joel.

Joel, sorry if I gave a long answer when you wanted a short one. At least in my mind, the problem is there is no short, simple answer to questions that make assumptions that may or may not be true. Simple answer to how do you flatten the back of a chisel is... you don't, at least in the way you are thinking. I thought that sounded a little rude so I tried to embellish it, sorry ;-)

Mark Twain once said something to the effect that he wanted to write a short speech but he did not have the time so he had to write a long one, often the case here.

Bob Smalser

01-27-2012, 8:41 PM

I always get a kick out of folks demagoging about the "correct" terminology for chisels, as they varied by manufacturer, by region and by trade. "Hoops" versus "striking rings" comes to mind reading the youth who writes for one of today's catalogs. (Both are correct.) As does the term "millwright" chisel, when the identical chisel was sold as a "deck" chisel, only to a shipyard instead of a window, door, staircase, molding and trim factory, or a "framing" chisel to carpenters when the term "framing" was a much more encompassing term than it is now.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/336026916.jpg

Hence of all the things in woodworking that are important, whether the above chisels should be called "millwright", "deck" or "framing" chisels is moot. What's important is they were designed to chop mortises and rabbets quickly and efficiently. And they do it exceptionally well, their length providing great leverage and ease in holding perfectly plumb. You won't break that quarter-inch chisel in wood.

What they generally were not called was "firmer" or "forming" chisels, which were intended for slightly lighter-duty work ranging from that of today's "bench" chisels to general-purpose work on ships, carriages or wagons. For example, these are a collection of what most old-timers would call "firmer chisels" or "registered firmer chisels":

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400658259.jpg

And if you need a reference, please treat yourself to a copy of Audel's Carpenter's and Builder's Guide, 1923 edition. A period reference using period terms, and not somebody writing for modern catalogs.

Bob Smalser

01-27-2012, 9:29 PM

Selected Audel on chisels:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400726300.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400726298.jpg

Joel Moskowitz

01-27-2012, 9:40 PM

I just feel compelled to comment on this. There are two reasons why the backs of these chisels are so convex. The first is possible improper lapping. The second, misuse. and here is where proper nomenclature is important. These chisels look like normal, fairly thin millwrights chisels. While on the surface to our modern eyes they might look like socketed mortise chisels or a bunch of other similar designs they aren't. 19th century tool catalogs routinely offered dozens of styles of tools all similar but slightly different. The people in the various trades understood the subtle differences and bought accordingly. Buck for example offered a millwrights mortise chisel. IT looks exactly like a millwright's chisel but is heavier all around. They are rare - as most mortising at the time was done by machine or with larger mortises, drilled out and then squared up with wide millwright's chisels. Millwrights chisels BTW weren't used in a mill to make furniture or anything like that - they were used by Millwrights to do the woodworking in mills - where the framing was big, complicated, and had lots of joints. The reason millwrights chisels are so long is for that reason - to get to the bottom of a deep joint.

In the US after the 1840's or so there was almost no mortising done by hand on furniture. Some of course, for very high end custom, but the overwhelming amount of furniture came from factories and the demand for American Mortise chisels of any design was nil. For mortising by hand the retail catalogs of the time recommended (obviously not all of them but some) English mortise chisels.

People can and have done great work with all sorts of tools, You don't need the perfect tool for every task. But by the same token incorrect nomenclature in this case has resulted in a tool purchase which if used the way the purchaser originally intended would result in the tools bending or snapping in two in no time.

Bob Smalser

01-27-2012, 10:15 PM

Joel Moskowitz

01-27-2012, 10:27 PM

These guys are using nice wide thick chisels to pare away a roughed out mortise that was done on a machine (look at the tool marks in the mortise). Not a real stress test. They wouldn't be ideal for chopping a mortise from scratch (too wide, but they are thick enough not to bend).
Compare them to the narrow chisels on the bottom - the top one has already bent. Try chopping a 1/4" mortise with that. one deep cut a little too deep, and bend or crack.

Chris Vandiver

01-27-2012, 10:40 PM

Yup. These shipwrights using fragile, narrow deck chisels almost identical to the OP's are surely about to bend or break them in that nasty, laminated, oak-and-resorcinol caprail on a minesweeper.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2595357/91556861.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400726642.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400726641.jpg

Utter nonsense. Just like no trades chopped a lot of mortises and rabbets by hand. I suggest you consider shipwrights, boatbuilders and carriagemakers where curved workpieces didn't easily fit machines or vice versa.

Those carpenters are trimming drilled out mortises and that are quite shallow to boot. I'll say it again, I wouldn't use the 1/4" or the 3/8" that are pictured at the beggining of this post, to do ANY serious mortising. I would certainly use them for trimming and mortise clean up, if that is what I had.

Bob Smalser

01-27-2012, 10:53 PM

Pop quiz.

Between 1938 and 1945 alone, how many warships, Liberty Ships, Tankers, Oilers et al did we build in the USA? There were 2800 Liberty Ships alone, so the total number had to be over 10,000.

How many lifeboats, jolly boats, tenders, gigs, cutters, et al do you spose were required for those ships? And what did they use to build the boats then? We built tens of thousands of boats, and ravaged the West Coast's Yellow and Port Orford Cedar and the East's White Oak stands to do it.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2595357/400726738.jpg

While occasionally a flooring saw and a brace can reach into those curved rabbets and frame pockets to hog out the waste, the bulk of the work was done using deck chisels. As it is today.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400726815.jpg

And bent? C'mon. The narrower chisels were forged with a tad of sweep to resist bending or breaking. It's there on purpose in the 1/8, 1/4, and 3/8 below. Further, if they were gonna bend or break it would be in the opposite direction. Most of the stress on a mortise chisel is bevel-up, not bevel-down:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5536778/70921515.jpg

Have you guys actually ever chopped mortises or rabbets at a commercial pace? And in laminated WO? Sure doesn't sound like it.

Joel Moskowitz

01-27-2012, 11:13 PM

"Have you guys actually ever chopped mortises or rabbets at a commercial pace?"

Yip - of course I used a mortising machine - just like the guys in the picture. (Of course i only did for specific projects - not day in and day out. )

Joel Moskowitz

01-27-2012, 11:32 PM

here's a link to a wood boring machine
http://www.hal.state.mi.us/mhc/museum/explore/museums/hismus/special/memory/collectr/brngmach.html

http://www.hal.state.mi.us/mhc/museum/explore/museums/hismus/special/memory/collectr/images/z0000199.gif

This is what millwrights used to drill out mortises, angled holes, and anything needed big holes. They are worked with both hands, fast, and fairly common in the 19th century. They also are easily set to drill at a specific angle - You can eyeball it but if you do this for a living you want to set and forget. Also it takes a lot less skill than using a brace. They were not used in the furniture industry (factory of bespoke). The big challenge in the millwright world being that the beams of a mill were usually far too heavy and long to bring to a machine. You had to bring the machine to the beam.

Bob Smalser

01-27-2012, 11:32 PM

Yip - of course I used a mortising machine - just like the guys in the picture.

Translation: No, you haven't. You can't clamp a mortising machine to most places shipwrights and boatbuilders chop mortises. Just like your argument that there was no American demand for mortise chisels is so ridiculous. Many hundreds of thousands of stem rabbets, keel rabbets, frame pockets, deck beam pockets, clamp pockets, stantion pockets, cap rails, etc, et al say otherwise.

Joel Moskowitz

01-27-2012, 11:39 PM

here's how the rail in the picture was done. look at the tool marks. The rail locations were laid out from the uprights and then taken into the machine shop and mortised with a regular hollow mortise bit. that's why you see the ridges in the mortises. Then they took it outside, and pared to the original layout lines.

If you read what I wrote - I'm talking about no demand from the furniture industry.

Bob Smalser

01-28-2012, 12:59 AM

If you read what I wrote - I'm talking about no demand from the furniture industry.

Oh, I read what you wrote, and you are mistaken on several levels, just like you were about bent blades:

... and the demand for American Mortise chisels of any design was nil.

You don't seem to understand how a boat is built. They are basically fastened to the floor and ceiling with shoring and the parts bent in before any pockets or mortises are cut. There isn't any moving the workpiece to the power tool. You take the tool to the workpiece, whether hand or power. Think about it. Basic Common-sense Construction 101. Laying out plumb pockets then bending the workpiece afterward would be a recipe for disaster.

That thousand-pound laminated cap rail was more likely laid out on the stantions, drilled in place using a boring machine, and the mortises cleaned up by hand. One has to lay the mortise locations out, first...and that must be done in place on a curved piece, not a hundred or more yards to the indoor shop where the power tools are. If they had a portable hollow chisel mortiser, just a few more cuts and no hand cleanup would have been required at all. Further, my father worked as a shipwright in the yard depicted in the photos, and the first hollow chisel mortiser he'd ever seen was one I showed him in a commercial shop I was working in circa 1974.

And even if they had a portable hollow chisel mortiser, the vast majority of pockets in these hull shapes offer no place to clamp the tool to, adjustable for angle or not:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2595357/400727445.jpg

And this is what a large stem rabbet looks like. Note that in spite of its size, he's finishing it with...a framing chisel.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2595357/400727444.jpg

joel cervera

01-28-2012, 1:20 AM

Lots of opinions here for and agin using these chisels to mortise. But ultimately opinions fall short when compared to direct experience. And though I began this thread asking for opinions I am left feeling that direct experience trumps opinion.. and is therefore my best guide. That direct experience being two fold. Firstly direct experience on Bob's part owning and using these same chisels making mortises. He seems to have the biggest collection of them I've seen anywhere and I bet he has used them to chop a mortise or two. Secondly I already own these so I might as well put them to use. I am sure chisel and wood will tell me the rest. If anyone can comment based on direct experience bending or breaking a chisel like this while chopping a mortise.... well then that might make for some more lively discussion..

Joel

Mike Holbrook

01-28-2012, 1:30 AM

Back to the OP's original questions for a minuet. If two people at Bob & Joel's knowledge level do not see eye to eye on these points, certainly those of us with only a small fraction of the knowledge are going to have a hard time coming up with definitive information on a specific tool made by a specific manufacturer. I am past the point of trying to find the perfect hand tool and the exact way to use it. I am just trying to find tools that I think I will enjoy using for the work I have in mind. Maybe it is more important to understand the questions than to own some correct answer.

I am personally just grateful to have such a wonderfully diverse selection of old and new hand tools to choose from. I am also grateful to have the opportunity to read the thoughts of people of Bob and Joel's level of dedication to Woodworking. Isn't our attraction to hand tools more about their diverse nature as opposed to the increasingly specific nature of machines? Is the beauty of a chisel more about how well it does one specific job or how well it can be adapted to do many different jobs as well or better than the more modern, mechanized tools?

Chris Vandiver

01-28-2012, 2:12 AM

Bob Smalser

01-28-2012, 8:02 AM

… Buck for example offered a millwrights mortise chisel. IT looks exactly like a millwright's chisel but is heavier all around. They are rare - as most mortising at the time was done by machine or with larger mortises, drilled out and then squared up with wide millwright's chisels.

Millwrights chisels BTW weren't used in a mill to make furniture or anything like that - they were used by Millwrights to do the woodworking in mills - where the framing was big, complicated, and had lots of joints. The reason millwrights chisels are so long is for that reason - to get to the bottom of a deep joint.

And where did you get these nuggets?

Refer to Audel. “Mill” refers to length, not thickness. Longer chisels were often preferred by factories and shops where storage and portability weren’t issues, and don’t refer to the timber framers who framed the buildings. Even though they can be the exact same chisels, those are generally called “framing chisels”.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/5090019/400726815.jpg

The minor differences in shapes are because these were all made by different manufacturers, not because any subtle grand design of the all-knowing. Buck Brothers didn’t have any special insight into millwright work. They merely had thirty serious competitors and wanted their product to stand out. You should be familiar with advertising hype.

Frankly, your meme of pushing English chisels is getting shop-worn, not that there’s anything wrong with English chisels.

Bob Smalser

01-28-2012, 9:24 AM

Allow me to recap the gems posted here so I can keep track, besides Buck’s special insight into millwork and “millwrights” being the timber framers who built the factories, not the guys who worked inside them:

1) A piece of forged, tempered tool-steel with more depth than width in its cross section is in danger of bending or breaking when used to lever out wood chips in quarter-inch or 3/8 mortises. When all it has to do is overcome wood’s relatively weak “shear parallel to grain” strength of between 600 and 1200 psi. When a soft solder joint runs 28,000 psi, a braze or weld above 40,000 psi and a solid steel billet half again stronger than that or more.

2) Beginning in 1840, mortising machines became increasingly common, largely eliminating the need for American-made mortise chisels. Hence there weren’t many except those imported from England. Nor were there apparently any trades that used them except large furniture and millwork factories. Or at least too few trades to justify manufacturing them in America. Forget about shipwrights, boatbuilders, carriage and wagon makers, aircraft manufacturers, house builders, piano and organ makers, every town’s cabinetmaker, and the myriad of repairmen. All the Bucks, Swans, Witherby’s, Gillespies, White’s and New Haven’s displayed here are really something else besides mortise chisels. The last time we had this discussion they were all “framing” chisels. Now they seem to have evolved into “firmer” chisels, too weak to chop mortises.

3) All the many thousands of ships built between 1917 and 1953 except for a few wooden minesweepers were made from steel. So why would any yard need chisels? After all, boats at the rate of five to a dozen per ship were fiberglass, weren’t they? Further, each one of those lifeboats contained a tool kit for repairing the boat or even building a new one if stranded in a remote location. Guess what kind of chisels were in that tool kit? Or in the “carpenter’s tool chests” that accompanied almost every 150-man company of troops in WWI and WWII? That some of the millwright chisels are stamped “US” might be a clue.

4) WWII shipyards routinely moved thousand-pound workpieces back to the shop for more machining after being laminated, surfaced and shipsawn in the shop and moved in place for layout and fitting. After all, crane time was free and this particular ship was probably the only vessel being built in the yard at the time. Right. In 1943.

Joel Moskowitz

01-28-2012, 10:04 AM

I have a tendency to go to original sources and my interest is the 19th and earlier centuries. In 1854 England was so concerned that the Americans were beating their pants off in industry that they sent a committee on the machinery of the US to the US in 1855 to see what was up. The committee was industry specialists including Joseph Whitworth. The report, which of course is first hand, by experts, goes from factory to factory for all sorts of industries. THe one common theme. especially in the furniture industry is the universal use of a factory system, the abundance of specialist machines, the use of a semi-skilled labor force, and to total lack of traditional furniture work. We of course have to remember that this is 1854 and while the real push for industrialization was just starting, the real shocker of automation to these gents would look like a lot of handwork to us today. Machines cut and planes the wood, cut the joints, did the turning. humans did all the final assembly.
This country didn't have an apprenticeship tradition like they did in Europe and In rich areas of the country you do see of course lots custom furniture. After all that's what's in the museums. But in many cases - maybe even most the labor force was immigrants trained in Europe. Not multi generation local cabinetmking firms. ( there are probably exceptions of course but even as a kid my recollections of the chances of any skilled cabinetmaker in NYC being a native English speaker was small.) This of course was not true outside major populations areas.

THe higher end hardware stores catering to the bespoke funiture trade routinely sold German and English tools along with American made tools. To this day in NYC flea markets I would probably find it easier to locate a German/Swiss made chisel than any American chisel except maybe Stanley. Of course in NYC furniture had a very heavy German influence.

American tool catalogs of the 19th century barely mention mortise chisels compared to the space dedicated to mortising machines of all types. Although when it came to mortising they many times list English mortise chisels. (carving tools were also almost always imported - usually from Ward & Payne.)

THe 1890 Buck Brothers Catalog lists 33 different types of chisels. 33, not gouges, just chisels. That's one maker, two brands, The differences between say a millwrights chisels, a coachmakers chisel, a mortise chisel, and a ship-carpenters chisel are obvious in the drawings, and have a lot more to do than length. The differences also make engineering sense to me, although I can understand why many people didn't feel the need to buy more expensive specialist tools. I would be curious what styles of chisels a local hardware store in a shipbuilding area stocked in the mid-late 19th century.

Ship building, like many woodworking trades outside of the construction were fairly small by comparison. A few hundred thousand people building ships pales in contrast to the millions in construction. So what happens, especially around WW1 is the simplification and rationalization of product lines. Lower demand industries (think of it in an industry with 100,000 workers how many need to buy a chisel in any given year) lose their specialist tools and the more general styles, which certainly work, remain. So people adapt. But these days where we are trying to rediscover older techniques that apply to hand tools - it just makes sense to go back and get the original styles of tools. A master craftsman can usually make anything using what ever tools are available but if you are starting out, why not start with the most efficient design for a particular trade that you are interested in.

Incidentally I remember reading years ago that the original Winterthur collection didn't include any furniture after 1850 because of the introduction of machines. I don't know if that's still true (I hope not)

Archie England

01-28-2012, 10:17 AM

Tis a humbling and wonderful opportunity to learn from those who have invested a life time of practice and/or study to these tools. Thank you--to each of you who have contributed to my knowledge in this area. My dad taught me decades ago that there was education better than the school of hard-knocks; so, I tremendously respect Bob Smalser and appreciate the fact that he brought living facts to the discussion. There's no doubt that what he describes from the muscle memory of those years IS PRECISELY how that occurred. To argue otherwise is ... well, you know. However, I tremendously appreciate Joel Moskowitz because he is attempting to research and archive such knowledge for future generations. We are privileged to have both the researcher and the experienced expert/builder. Again, thank you for improving my knowledge.

Here's what I've gleaned--

1. morticing tools (mill length) were variously labeled with slight differences (hoops or not) as a marketing ploy to appeal to all the various industry applications.
2. sway designs didn't necessarily mean anything about tool weakness but rather indicated how a mfg attempted to gain attention
3. proof of the durability of these thin morticing chisels is the fact that we're still using them. Obvious are the bent, cracked, snapped ones. And, as obvious, abuse of most any tool can render even the best made tools damaged.
4. Research data has telescoped its assessment of the how many handtools were continued in use once large capacity equipment emerged. There appears to be significant testimony and evidence that WW2 builders reflected a huge upsurge in hand tool usage that "textbooks" failed to document.
5. The answer to the OP? is yes, these are millwright mortice chisels but they don't look at all like the Ray Iles mortice chisels and, hence, cause most of us to shrink back from thinking that they will endure a mallet pounding.
6. This leads me to conclude that we now perceive two mortice chisel traditions possibly--the American tradition (slimmer, taller) vs. the British (stouter, shorter). I DO WONDER IF THIS OCCURRED DUE TO TOOL MFG PROCESSES--continued smithing in the UK vs. cast pouring in USA? Any guesses?