Blade adjustment on cigar shaves

[Michael Ray Smith]

I know there have been a few threads lately about spokeshaves in general, and some about cigar shaves in particular, and at least one a while back about sharpening the blade on cigar shaves, but I don't recall anything recently about adjusting the blade on a cigar shave. You can find some discussion of the topic at various sites, but I found that some of it isn't very helpful. I have no idea if my technique is "right," but it works for me, at least using the Millers Falls #1.

Spokeshaves are sometimes described as equivalent to small planes. For a cigar shave that analogy goes only so far, but I'll start out with that frame of reference and refer to the flat section on the outside of the body the "sole," the leading edge of it (i.e., the edge furthest away from the blade) the "toe," and the other edge the "heel." (No idea if that's the traditional terminology.) To get very fine shavings, I first set the edge of the blade so that it is coplanar with the sole, and then rotate it just a bit toward the sole, which moves the edge a skosh higher than the plane in which the sole lies (i.e., higher with the shave held so the sole is on top). I've tried to put a number to "skosh" using feeler gauges, but getting a number is difficult for a reason I'll discuss in a minute. The picture shows my Millers Falls #1 with the blade in that position.

Notice that the mouth looks fairly wide the way I have the blade adjusted. Here's where the analogy to planes or other shaves with adjustable mouths falls apart. With the cylindrical geometry of a cigar shave, tightening the mouth also increases the distance between the edge of the blade and the plane in which the sole lies, with the result that tightening the mouth actually produces thicker shavings.

On occasion, when I'm trying to shave a very tight concave surface, I'll adjust the blade in the opposite direction from what I've described above, so that the edge of the blade is below the plane of the sole, although the retaining screws limit how far you can go in that direction. If you adjust the blade as I described above, when you first start a cut on a flat workpiece, only the edge of the blade and the toe of the sole will contact the wood. If you adjust the blade in the opposite direction, the edge of the blade and the heel of the sole contact the wood. Because the heel is closer to the edge of the blade, you can get into a bit tighter curve. At least it seems to work that way for me.

One more observation that I alluded to earlier: If you set the blade so that it's coplanar with the sole, in theory it shouldn't cut at all if you hold it so that the sole is flat against the wood. In practice, there really is no "zero" point, at least not on any Millers Falls #1 that I've ever seen, because the sole is slightly crowned rather than perfectly flat. I'm inclined to think that was intentional, but maybe not -- When George Wilson made a couple of blades for me a while back, he noted that there seems to have been a fair amount of variability in the manufacturing process for the MF #1 bodies. The diameter can vary a bit from one tool to another, and George even noticed some differences between the two ends of the same shave body. So it's certainly possible that the crown in the sole is a manufacturing artifact. At any rate, that slight crown is why it's hard to put a number to the skosh I mentioned earlier.

281312

[Michael Ray Smith]

Oh, one other thing about these tools. For the longest time, I thought of them as being in the category of low angle spokeshaves, and there are some similarities (e.g., a cigar shave is bevel-up), but I always noticed that they are far less prone than low angle shaves to cause split-out. As I have the blade set in the picture above, the angle between the sole and the flat section on the outside of the blade is about 30 degrees. Assuming the bevel on the inside of the blade is 25 degress, that makes a 55 degree angle of attack --not at all low angle. Of course, like a draw knife, the actual angle of attack depends on the way it's held.

[george wilson]

How is your new blade holding up in edge retention? Those blades are more trouble than they are worth to make! I had to buy a piece of drill rod about 7/8" diameter(I can't remember the size now). Then I had to drill it out and then single point bore it out to get the inside curve to mate up to the body of the shave. Then radius the back edge and harden and draw it,polish and grind the edge on. More trouble than making a flat blade.

I am sure it would be quicker to stamp one out of flat stock,but for 1 or 2 blades,it wasn't worth the trouble to make tooling to do that. Easier to just turn them out of round drill rod (01).

My cigar shaves look like the flat area in front of the blade was hand filed in,and not to great flatness or accuracy.

[Michael Ray Smith]

They're doing fine on edge retention. I've always found that these blades need to be honed fairly frequently, but the ones you made hold up at least as well as the originals, probably better. I expect they'll last many more years.

Is it possible that someone really did take a hand file to your cigar shaves? One of the things I've seen on MF #1's out in the wild is that people tried to sharpen them by putting a bevel on the outside of the blade. The result is that the edge of the blade won't even contact the wood, and I can imagine someone taking a file to the body, trying to make it work after they screwed up the blade.

[george wilson]

I have 2 that are both filed. Yours looks filed too.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Yours looks filed too.

Yes, it's quite possible.

[Robert G Brown]

Looks like your spoke shave has been altered. I have a reproduction. It is set for a fine shaving. Getting it to work is a matter of having the proper degree of rotation when using. It took me a little practice but I am quite happy with it. Here is photo of it. Sorry for the blurry image. 281377

[george wilson]

You just have your blade turned around the other way don't you,Robert? The way you have it turned makes it into a round bottom spokeshave. Or,am I missing something here?

[James Taglienti]

Here is mine with a decently filed flat in front of the mouth. I should note that the whole body is nickeled everywhere but the flat, which is raw .

Using a reproduction to determine the manufacturing steps of the originals is probably a mistake.

[george wilson]

James,yours looks like the neatest flat I have seen. But,even yours looks like the maker took the extra time to draw file the surface. Those look like draw filed lines. My shaves still have the raw file marks,and are not especially accurate.

[Roger Davis IN]

George:
The Kelly (?) reproduction is made without the flat and with slightly larger handles than the original. The round body is simply left round.

[Roger Davis IN]

It appears that the vast majority of these shaves have been filed by owners; it was really tough to find one that matched the patent drawing (#293651). Dealers usually make a big deal about an unfiled mouth and/or lots of red paint remaining on the big flat across the body (throat, more or less).

[george wilson]

Not that I am an expert on these cigar shaves but don't they have a flat so they function as a flat shave. Then,you can turn the blade around to make them into a round shave for doing hollow work? I had just thought that in manufacture the makers had simply found it more expedient to let the workmen spend a few minutes filing the flat area,rather that setting up to mill them flat. I say this only because in my limited experience with these cigar shaves,I haven't seen one that wasn't filed.

Perhaps as manufactured,the factory did not mill enough metal away,and owners found it necessary to enlarge the flat area?

Personally,I have never been able to get excited by these cigar shaves,and haven't really studied them much. I have a few,but can't recall how I got them. Probably in some forgotten flea market trip.

[Mike Holbrook]

I just bought a spokeshave hoping it will help with some of the same work as the MF Cigar type shave. I am also trying to figure out whether a cigar shave will do things the shave I just bought want. It sounds like the blade adjustment on the MF cigar shave does two things at the same time, moves the blade a set distance from the radius of the circular shave so it removes more or less wood, opens up the chip exit, mouth. I am curious how well the two screws work for securing the blade and if they tend to get in the way?

I bought a Master shave from Woodjoy Tools. The Master is a little like the Veritas Low angle spokeshave in that the rest in front of the blade can be rotated. One side of the rest (toe piece) is flat and the other is curved. I did not think "Cigar Shaves" had that feature? The curved "toe piece" on the Woodjoy tool is shaped a little more like a cigar shave than the LV shave. Like the LV shave the Woodjoy tool has two sets of screws for adjusting the blade depth, one set of screws serves to lock the blade at the level set by the first set of screws. The adjusting screws on the Woodjoy tool are recessed into the body except for the main blade depth screws which are low profile.

It seems that these shaves have a limit on how tight they can reach into corners or curves. The limit has to do with the blade not reaching out to the full radius of the toe piece, unless maybe the blade is "over" extended on the adjustment screws. I am interested in tools for making Windsor chairs which may have some difficult to reach areas.

[Michael Ray Smith]

James,yours looks like the neatest flat I have seen.

Ditto. I've seen a lot of MF#1's (got sort of addicted to them for a while, but now I'm down to one), and that's the nicest one I've seen.

[Michael Ray Smith]

I am curious how well the two screws work for securing the blade and if they tend to get in the way?


If you're not careful about tightening the screws, the blade can slip, but it's not hard to get them tight enough. I've never had a problem with them getting in the way, but I suppose it's possible, depending on what you're working on.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Getting it to work is a matter of having the proper degree of rotation when using.

Yes, it is -- just like using a draw knife. Here are two shavings, both cut with the blade in the same position as in the first picture I posted. The thin one was cut with the flat part of the body resting against the wood, acting sort of like the sole of a plane (sort of). The second is with it rotated so that only the blade contacts the wood, like a small draw knife. Thing is, with the blade adjusted with the open mouth that I showed, it didn't take lot of practice for me to start getting fine shavings. It didn't get difficult until I started paying attention to some of the advce I found online. YMMV, and it's all about finding what works for you.
281444

[Mike Holbrook]

I have been watching videos on making Windsor chairs. In one of Peter Galbert's he uses an extra large wooden spokeshave that he finds very versatile for chair building. The body of the shave, in front of the blade, is slightly convex brass. Galbert demonstrates how the shave can be rotated on the convex body to take more or less wood with each pass. Galbert feels that it requires more physical skill and dexterity to use a shave with that body shape, but also feels it is worth developing the skill set to obtain the on the fly versatility of the tool. It is interesting to see how fast Peter is able to remove a large quantity of wood and then finish the surface, all with the same tool and no adjustment. Galbert tries to avoid using sandpaper, switching between tools or even having to stop to adjust tools. He now makes a Travisher that can be used somewhat like the big spokeshave. Galbert can apparently hollow out an entire chair seat with just his Travisher.

Of course, the shave Peter was using was an old antique, different than anything I have found available and his Travisher is expensive.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Online? Got a link?

[Mike Holbrook]

Peter does a three part series about Travishers, particularly his and how to use it. In the first video, below, 1/3 through the video, he compares how his Travisher works to a Stanley 151 spokeshave and the old style spokeshave I mentioned above. Rather than link to Peter's Blog I provided the YouTube link. There are 25 video links on Peter's Chair Notes Blog. Some of these videos are about tools Peter or associates of his sell, but I think all the information still has value educationally. Everything I mention above is not on the one video below, most of the information I am referring to is on his 3 Travisher videos, some from a basic chair making video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHSPSxfrTc#t=224

[Robert G Brown]

You just have your blade turned around the other way don't you,Robert? The way you have it turned makes it into a round bottom spokeshave. Or,am I missing something here?

No George, my blade is not turned around. I did some research since my last post. My reproduction is apparently not 100% true to the original. The originals have a little flat area in front of the blade edge. Mine does not. That is why I thought Michael's spokeshave had been altered. All the photos of the originals that I could find online have that flat area in front of the blade edge. None of the close-ups looked like an aftermarket filing. Even the patent image shows a flat in front of the mouth. I am expecting an original Miller Falls No. 1 any day now. I hope it hasn't been altered like some of you all say has been done to yours. I will inspect it closely. Anyhow, I will be able to compare the two and see how they differ in shaving. Attached is patent image.
281490

[Michael Ray Smith]

Yes, the flat section on the body is definitely part of the Millers Falls design. The questions are how it was put there originally -- whether it was milled or hand filed -- and whether a user later took a file to it for whatever reason. As I discussed in the OP, the flat section serves a purpose that is more than simply forming a mouth. At least the way that's true the way I use it. I have no idea if I'm using it the way that Albert Goodell (who seems to have been a brilliant inventor) envisioned, but it works for me.

[Adam Maxwell]

Yes, the flat section on the body is definitely part of the Millers Falls design. The questions are how it was put there originally -- whether it was milled or hand filed -- and whether a user later took a file to it for whatever reason. As I discussed in the OP, the flat section serves a purpose that is more than simply forming a mouth. At least the way that's true the way I use it. I have no idea if I'm using it the way that Albert Goodell (who seems to have been a brilliant inventor) envisioned, but it works for me.

Michael, my cigar shave appears to have file marks on the mouth flat. Since it has remnants of nickel plating on the mouth, I'm sure those marks are original. If you use the blade without a bevel on the inside (as I do) you have to get the blade really close to the mouth unless you've filed it past the original depth; mine looks a lot like James Taglienti's earlier in this thread. It's one of my favorite tools, especially for end grain, and very underrated. From the patent drawings, I've never been quite clear whether an inner bevel is used or not; in comparing with my Kelly cigar shave, I see clear tradeoffs either way.

If anyone is looking for replacement blades for the MF #1, Tim Kelly has been selling them on fleabay, as well as his cigar shaves. I wrote a short review of them for the oldtools list a couple of months ago, for what it's worth. Short summary: very good. Pay attention to your blade length and diameter, though, as the MF shaves have crazy variability.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:swingleydev.com+maxwell+kelly+cigar+shave&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:swingleydev.com+maxwell+kelly+cigar+shave&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Obligatory disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Tim Kelly, other than as a happy customer who had been looking for a replacement blade for years.