New Lee Valley Mortise Chisels

[Sean Nagle]

I've been wanting to purchase some proper mortise chisels for some time. The Ray Iles mortise chisels were always at the top of my list. I also considered the Lie-Nielsen mortise chisels, but I'm not a big fan of the socket handles. I have a full set of their bench chisels and the handles are always popping out. Anyway, this week I received email from Lee Valley introducing their new Veritas mortise chisels.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,41504&p=74686&WT.mc_id=2016_4&WT.tsrc=Email

I like their handles and I've always been very happy with Veritas products I've purchased in the past. I was contemplating purchasing these with the A2 steel over the Ray Iles chisels which have D2 steel. I'm hesitant to spend considerably more for the Lee Valley PM-V11 steel since I don't make mortises with hand tools exclusively.

I realize no one has yet seen these new chisels to make an informed assessment, but is there a reason I should pass on these and go with the Ray Iles?

[Paul Sidener]

Over time the handles on the Ray Iles will split, because of the tang. I think the Veritas tang in socket will hold up better. I have been using the Lie Nielsen mortise chisels, they work as good as any other chisels that I have used. I will say the Lie Nielsen chisels are more of a light weight chisel, compared to the Ray Iles chisels.

[Dave Kelley]

I of course don't have the Veritas but love the two planes I do have of theirs. I also don't own LN stuff but of course everyone loves their stuff. As for "fixing" your LN chisels, spray some hairspray on the handle where the socket slips on and push it in tight. Should solve that issue for you.

I personally would save the money and go for the Iles chisels. I have a couple of their English pattern MK2 chisels and wish I had just bought the set. Some of the nicest, thinnest chisels I've ever seen and used. I can only imagine their mortise chisels will be good as well. For mortise chisels I have the Narex ones because I don't cut a ton of mortises and in all reality there isn't much to a pig sticker anyway. Just sharpen and pound on it.

So, my vote would be the Iles. Veritas would be good but I don't think you need to spend that, but, they look amazing. Or you could save a ton and grab the Narex I mentioned if you don't mind some ugly chisels sitting around that do a good job.

Just my .02.

[Jim Koepke]

I also considered the Lie-Nielsen mortise chisels, but I'm not a big fan of the socket handles. I have a full set of their bench chisels and the handles are always popping out. Anyway, this week I received email from Lee Valley introducing their new Veritas mortise chisels.

As much as I like socket mount handles on my chisels, it doesn't seem an advantage on a mortise chisel. I haven't looked at an LN bench chisel. There handles popping of easily has me wondering if they made the inside of the socket too smooth. All of my socket chisels have rough surfaces inside the socket which seems to make the handle 'jam' in place better.

As far as which mortise chisels, my only thought is George Wilson mentioned that D2 is a bit harder to get fully sharp.

Other than that it would be whether you like the traditional handle style of the Ray Iles or if the LV handles appeal to your senses. I kind of like the look of the maple handles on the LV chisels.

jtk

[Mike Cherry]

I don't know but if they can keep them in stock they will be better off than the Iles. I've been waiting for a replacement 3/8" Iles pigsticker for almost 4 months. The chisel was poorly tempered and chips after only a few blows. The chisel has been ground back far enough that it should be past any brittle metal.

[Frederick Skelly]

(Just in time to use their free shipping!) ;)

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Not a direct answer to your question, but I just got done looking for mortise chisels so thought I would comment. After handling what Lee Valley had at a show (this was before their mortise chisels came out), looking at the Lie Nielsens, and reading everything I could about the Iles chisels, I got old Sorbys from Jim Bode. If I could not find old ones I was happy with, I would probably have gone with the Iles.

[Phil Mueller]

Just got their late summer catalog as well and the mortise chisels caught my eye. Not sure what you're building, but I have only needed a 1/4" size so far and I have the Ray Iles. If, as Paul suggested, it ever splits, I would consider these.

Given I would only buy the 1/4", I'd likely go PM-V11.

[Steve Voigt]

Over time the handles on the Ray Iles will split, because of the tang.

A tang will not cause the handle on a "pigsticker" (or oval-bolstered) mortise chisel to split. For that matter, a tang shouldn't cause any handle to split. The end grain of the handle bottoms out against the bolster and takes all the force. The obmc design has been around for centuries and is extremely durable. I have never split one.

I suppose I would rather have the PM-V11 in the Veritas than the D2 in the Isles, but I wouldn't be concerned about the handles in either.

In any case, it's nice to see another option for mortise chisels.

[Derek Cohen]

I only have preproduction versions with a variety of handle sizes and blade steels. I cannot therefore comment about the handles too much since I have not used the production versions, but I really like the general shape, and used them both with- and without the steel hoop. Even without the hoop they failed to show signs of wear.

What I can say is that these are the best mortice chisels I have used. My go to chisels have been Ray Isles, which are excellent, and a bunch of vintage Wards (which are nearly as good in edge holding as the RI D2 blades).

Where the Veritas shade the RI is in the blade design. The Veritas are slightly deeper, with more side registration near the bevel end. The lands are sharp front and back. These features translate into more control and smoother walls.

I obtained great results from both A2 and PM-V11. I do not doubt that the PM steel is better, however I found that the A2 just kept on going, and I never could discover the duration each held an edge. For all practical purposes, either should hold an edge through the longest morticing session you choose to endure.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Over time the handles on the Ray Iles will split, because of the tang.

Have you actually looked closely at the Ray Iles chisels or are you just hypothesizing?

The reason I ask is because:

1. They have full bolsters. In other words the flange on the blade at the base of the handle is large enough to cover the full cross-section of the handle, just like a socket.

2. The handle cross-section is absolutely huge.

While I'm sure that you could crack the handle on any chisel with enough abuse, the Iles ones are VERY well supported by the bolster, which prevents the tang from being driven further back into the handle as a result of pounding. In comparison the Veritas chisels have substantially smaller handles, and the socket is much smaller than the Iles' bolster and provides less mechanical support to the handle.

[Paul Sidener]

Have you actually looked closely at the Ray Iles chisels or are you just hypothesizing?

The reason I ask is because:

1. They have full bolsters. In other words the flange on the blade at the base of the handle is large enough to cover the full cross-section of the handle, just like a socket.

2. The handle cross-section is absolutely huge.

While I'm sure that you could crack the handle on any chisel with enough abuse, the Iles ones are VERY well supported by the bolster, which prevents the tang from being driven further back into the handle as a result of pounding. In comparison the Veritas chisels have substantially smaller handles, and the socket is much smaller than the Iles' bolster and provides less mechanical support to the handle.

I had one and it split. The salesman that sold it to me told me they were prone to split. I know two other people that have had them split as well. They just went and made new handles for them, I bought a different chisel. The handles that they made have lasted way longer than the originals.

That was why I went to the Lie Nielsen. I think I have had it for three years, with no issues. My bench chisels are Lie Nielsen as well. If I have a problem with a handle, I can just use one off of another chisel with no lost time.

[Derek Cohen]

I have never had a problem with the RI handles. Nor with any of the replacements I made for the Wards. There is an article (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRestorations/Rehandling%20an%20Oval%20Bolstered%20Mortice%20Chi sel.html)on my website how to make your own. That was 10 years ago, so I can say the handle style is fine.

Compared to the LN and Veritas mortice chisels, I find the LN too short - but that is personal. What I like about the Oval Bolstered handles is that the grip is variable - slide your hand up or down to suit the situation. The Veritas handles I tried ranged from very large to small (we were testing handle size), so I cannot say what the current one feels like. However I liked the overall length and style of the handle. They offered good directionality (flats on the sides).

Overall, the handle-blade combination on the Veritas felt taut. As mentioned earlier, the blade design adds to the effect of more control over the RI, which are quite pointy by comparison (hence "pig sticker").

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

I had one and it split. The salesman that sold it to me told me they were prone to split. I know two other people that have had them split as well. They just went and made new handles for them, I bought a different chisel. The handles that they made have lasted way longer than the originals.

Interesting. That sounds like a manufacturing defect, because that configuration (full-bolstered pigsticker) has been around forever and is known to hold up extremely well under abuse.

I hope they straightened it out by the time they made mine.

[Adam Stevens2]

I'm sure they are great chisels, but bloody hell, the price is a bit steep. Feel like you can get the same results without spending half as much. I have the Narex ones and they do the job just fine.

[Patrick Chase]

Overall, the handle-blade combination on the Veritas felt taut. As mentioned earlier, the blade design adds to the effect of more control over the RI, which are quite pointy by comparison (hence "pig sticker").


I think you indirectly raise a terrific point: The L-N and Veritas mortise chisels are patterned after very different historical designs (registered sash mortise and sash mortise respectively) than the Ray Illes (pigsticker). The handling is very different between those two design families.

I personally prefer pigstickers, but IMO that's very subjective and individual. I know plenty of people who prefer sash mortise chisels though.

EDIT: Completed last sentence.

[Derek Cohen]

That's how I see it, Patrick - sash mortice chisels are lighter duty. I assume that they were designed for sash windows. The OB mortice chisel is much heavier duty. I would place the Veritas more in line with the latter (OB) owing to the shape of the blades, or perhaps call them Heavy Duty Sash Mortice Chisels owing to the handle design. Also note that the LN are parallel sided blades and the RI/Veritas have relieved sides.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.crucibleservice.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html

We often intuitively expect that a harder tool will resist wear better than a softer tool. However, different grades, used at the same hardness, provide varying wear resistance. For instance, O1, A2, D2, and M2 would be expected to show increasingly longer wear performance, even if all were used at 60 HRC. In fact, in some situations, lower hardness, high alloy grades may outwear higher hardness, lower alloy grades. Thus, factors other than hardness must contribute to wear properties.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm, been using these for quite a while, may just keep using them..
342613
The main two I use all the time, just old vintage ones. Have a couple by Butcher, as well....

[Patrick Chase]

As far as which mortise chisels, my only thought is George Wilson mentioned that D2 is a bit harder to get fully sharp.

D2 has 12% Chromium, compared to 5% in A2, so it has more and bigger carbides. Hock's book has a micrograph showing that the carbides are several times larger than in A2.

The bottom line is that you really want a sharpening medium that can sharpen the carbides as well as the metal. I pretty much exclusively use diamond films/paste with my RIs, though I don't doubt that Spyderco plates will work just fine as the Alumina-ceramic abrasive in those is significantly harder than chromium carbide. SiO (Arks, JNats) doesn't work so well, though.

You also need to hone it at a fairly high tip angle so that the carbides along the edge are amply supported by the surrounding metal, but you have to do that anyway in mortise chisels. I use 35 deg microbevels on my RIs.

[Patrick Chase]

http://www.crucibleservice.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html

It's important to distinguish between average/bulk hardness and local hardness within the grain structure. The steels in that quotation are not-so-coincidentally listed in order of increasing carbide content, meaning that the ones listed as long-wearing contain higher percentages of very hard carbides within their structure. Those ultra-hard carbides are what provide the wear resistance. One simplistic way to think of them is as providing carbide "cutting teeth" along the edge, like a microscopic circular saw blade.

I would therefore argue that hardness IS what largely drives wear resistance, but only if you consider local hardness in addition to bulk/average hardness.

[Patrick Chase]

That's how I see it, Patrick - sash mortice chisels are lighter duty. I assume that they were designed for sash windows. The OB mortice chisel is much heavier duty. I would place the Veritas more in line with the latter (OB) owing to the shape of the blades, or perhaps call them Heavy Duty Sash Mortice Chisels owing to the handle design. Also note that the LN are parallel sided blades and the RI/Veritas have relieved sides.

I'd call it a heavy duty sash mortise chisel due to three distinguishing features:

1. The blade is relatively slender. They mention that it's "more than 1/2" thick, but true pigstickers are often in excess of 3/4". The Veritas chisels have about the same blade cross-section as the Narex ones, and those are notably lighter and less rigid than pigstickers.

2. The blade "necks down" to a smaller circular cross-section before the socket/bolster. Pigstickers typically carry their full cross-section all the way back to the bolster and handle. They actually appear to be a bit more lightly built than Narex in this respect, as the latter carry their full cross-section back to the bolster/handle.

3. As you say the handle is relatively slender and round. Pigstickers have larger oval handles.

There are such things as sash mortise chisels with tapered sides. That what I was driving at when I said in an earlier post that the L-N is a "registered" (parallel-sided) sash mortise but the Veritas isn't.

None of this says anything negative about the Veritas (see comment in prev post about subjective preference), but I'd say that anyone comparing it to the Ray Iles chisels probably needs to back up a bit and figure out what kind of chisel they really want/need first. The Veritas chisels compete with other sash mortise offerings like L-N. The RI chisels are off in a completely different product category.

[lowell holmes]

I don't use them a lot, but I have never had issues with my Ray Iles chisels.

Of course I don't mistreat them either.

[george wilson]

I will mention again that D2 will take a razor sharp edge,ONLY if your stones are HARD ENOUGH to cut the steel. I have to use CERAMICS on the D2 tools I have made. But,it depends upon how they harden and temper the D2 in the factory. It varies.

However,D2 will not HOLD that razor sharp edge. It gets just below it,and seems to stay there for quite a while. That might be o.k. for mortising chisels,though.

I advise getting the powdered metal ones or the A2 ones. Depends upon your budget!!:) I have made all of my wife's punch and die sets for making jewelry from A2. It holds up through THOUSANDS of cycles punching photographic paper and Lexan plastic. Paper is NOT the easiest thing on a cutting edge,either. So,A2 will be just fine,in my opinion,though I do like my PM VII plane iron a LOT.

[Patrick Chase]

It's important to distinguish between average/bulk hardness and local hardness within the grain structure. The steels in that quotation are not-so-coincidentally listed in order of increasing carbide content, meaning that the ones listed as long-wearing contain higher percentages of very hard carbides within their structure. Those ultra-hard carbides are what provide the wear resistance. One simplistic way to think of them is as providing carbide "cutting teeth" along the edge, like a microscopic circular saw blade.

Clarifying a bit because I oversimplified in one case: The kind of carbide also matters.

For example M2 has similar total alloyant content as D2, but it has more Tungsten (and Molybdenum, but I'm going to ignore that for now) and less Chromium. Tungsten carbides are harder than chromium carbides, resulting in a very long-wearing steel. Vanadium carbide is even harder still, which is why CPM-10V is wear resistant to the point where common sharpening media don't work on it (Aluminum-Oxide and alumina-ceramic are both softer than vanadium carbide, and SiC is marginal. Diamond and CBN are basically the only viable options).

[Patrick Chase]

I will mention again that D2 will take a razor sharp edge,ONLY if your stones are HARD ENOUGH to cut the steel. I have to use CERAMICS on the D2 tools I have made. But,it depends upon how they harden and temper the D2 in the factory. It varies.

However,D2 will not HOLD that razor sharp edge. It gets just below it,and seems to stay there for quite a while. That might be o.k. for mortising chisels,though.

I advise getting the powdered metal ones or the A2 ones. Depends upon your budget!!:) I have made all of my wife's punch and die sets for making jewelry from A2. It holds up through THOUSANDS of cycles punching photographic paper and Lexan plastic. Paper is NOT the easiest thing on a cutting edge,either. So,A2 will be just fine,in my opinion,though I do like my PM VII plane iron a LOT.

Rumor Has It (tm) that PM-V11 is fairly similar in composition to D2 but with higher Chromium. PM-V11's high (>=15%) Cr content can also be inferred independent of rumor from the fact that it is stainless, and therefore seems a near certainty.

My experience with the two aligns with yours, and I think that the difference demonstrates the importance of grain structure/size. D2's large carbides tend to chip out and degrade the edge (though as you say it stabilizes once the most vulnerable ones have been knocked out) whereas PM-V11's much finer structure holds up quite nicely.

I also think that D2 holds an edge better at higher edge angles, and this makes logical choice if you think about it in terms of how well the carbides along the edge are supported. The lower the edge angle the more "vulnerable" the carbides will be, and the more sharpness will be lost before it stabilizes. IMO there is always some degree of "chipiness" with D2, but I think that with a 35 deg microbevel it holds up more than well enough for a mortising chisel. I wouldn't want to pare with a D2 chisel though (for that matter and as I've said before, I think that Blue Spruce's choice of A2 for their paring chisels is questionable for the same reason).

By the same token I agree that A2 would work perfectly well in the LV mortise chisels.

[Mike Henderson]

This is a bit off subject, but if you want to save some money buy some antique pigstickers, such as Ward. They were laminated with a hard steel (plain carbon steel) for the cutting edge and a softer steel for the backer. I have a set of Ward Pigstickers and I see them come up for sale every now and then.

They are usually not exact in size, most are just a bit wider than the expected width.

I don't do a lot of cutting mortises from scratch - I usually drill out most of the waste and then clean up the mortise - but when I have used the Wards, they work fine and hold an edge for an acceptable length of time.

Ask yourself how many mortises you're going to make with mortise chisels. If you're going to do a lot, go with the LV. If you're only going to make mortises now and again, an old Pigsticker will serve just fine and save you some money.

Mike

[Adam Cruea]

I've split the beech handle on my 1/2" RI. Made a new one of hickory, hasn't busted yet (and it's a lot more substantial than the beech one that came on it). Of course, keep in mind that I mortise with a mallet that's probably about 4 pounds and I like working with harder woods like hickory.

They are a PITA to sharpen as well. The first 1/2" I had chipped like crazy and constantly needed re-sharpened; it was also not straight. It was more dog-legged. The replacement that TFWW sent me as well as the 1/4" I got work wonderfully, though.

[Paul Sidener]

Interesting. That sounds like a manufacturing defect, because that configuration (full-bolstered pigsticker) has been around forever and is known to hold up extremely well under abuse.

I hope they straightened it out by the time they made mine.

It very well could be. If the mortise in the handle is a little too tight for the tang. I never really thought about that much. It could even been the wood it's self. I don't abuse my tools, but you do hit it with a mallet.

I thought it was interesting that the DVD that came with "The Anarchist's Tool Chest" Chris Schwarz even mentioned that they will split.

I really do prefer the shape of the handle on the RI chisels. Eventually I will probably get another pigsticker, maybe just a vintage one. Probably less expensive that way too.

[Warren Mickley]

The "pigstickers" or "oval bolstered" mortise chisels were called joiner's mortise chisels when they appeared in the late 19th century. They were considerably heavier than mortise chisels from the hand tool era. Oval bolster and pigsticker are modern names. The sash mortise chisel also appeared in the late 19th century. Since there were industrial mortise machines in use during this time, it is difficult to sort out what trades did what or to make generalizations. Charles Hayward says that cabinetmakers used sash mortise chisels in the early 20th century. The pigstickers are very awkward for deep mortises that are not very long, as in a cabinet door frame. Some people today make shallow mortises for stub tenons for which the pigstickers are fine.

In the 18th century mortise chisels were considerably lighter and were not differentiated into two groups. The chisels illustrated in Diderot and Roubo were more like sash mortise chisels than "pigstickers".

The Lee Valley chisels are ground at 25 degrees and have a small 35 degree honing bevel. This is inappropriate for a mortise chisel because for mortising we ride the bevel and use a full flat bevel. The catalog says "Only final honing required before use." Actually quite a bit of remedial work is needed to correct the bevel. The narrowing at the neck might be a weak point for the chisel, but I would be worried about the strength of the tang. If it is anything like the dinky tang on the Lee Valley bench chisels, it would be a weakness.

[Brian Holcombe]

There is some experience required in keeping mortise chisel bevels in tact. I believe that driving them solid then levering is brutal on the edge, so I back the chisel out and just scoop the waste. My mortise chisels are high carbon steel and u can usually cut many mortises before they wear to the point if needing a touch up.
I'm suspect that moving to a steel like D2 is necessary or even an improvement. An extremely wear resistant steel that chips with ease sounds like a call for more time at the stones than warranted for a given project.

[lowell holmes]

Quote from a magazine article - - -"The steel used in these chisels is D2, a tough alloy to be sure. The downside to the D2 is that it’s more difficult to sharpen than any other steel I’ve tried (it’s even more difficult than some exotic steel I tried from planemaker Karl Holtey (http://karlholtey.com/) a few years ago). Some sharpening systems don’t seem to really be able to sharpen it much, even with a lot of rubbing. Other systems work (such as diamonds and Norton waterstones), but it takes far longer to polish the bevel to an acceptable level."

I haven't sharpened mine, but I did introduce a compound bevel to mine. I did not experience any issies.

[Patrick Chase]

Quote from a magazine article - - -"The steel used in these chisels is D2, a tough alloy to be sure. The downside to the D2 is that it’s more difficult to sharpen than any other steel I’ve tried (it’s even more difficult than some exotic steel I tried from planemaker Karl Holtey (http://karlholtey.com/) a few years ago). Some sharpening systems don’t seem to really be able to sharpen it much, even with a lot of rubbing. Other systems work (such as diamonds and Norton waterstones), but it takes far longer to polish the bevel to an acceptable level."

I haven't sharpened mine, but I did introduce a compound bevel to mine. I did not experience any issies.


In my experience diamonds aren't much slower on D2 than on A2 or PM-V11. Diamonds/CBN are so much harder than any of these steels that they're relatively insensitive (compared to softer media) to the differences.

Sigma Select II stones also do well on D2. Not as fast, and not quite as nice of an edge (though as George points out you'll soon lose that anyway) but very usable.

[Patrick Chase]

There is some experience required in keeping mortise chisel bevels in tact. I believe that driving them solid then levering is brutal on the edge, so I back the chisel out and just scoop the waste. My mortise chisels are high carbon steel and u can usually cut many mortises before they wear to the point if needing a touch up. I'm suspect that moving to a steel like D2 is necessary or even an improvement. An extremely wear resistant steel that chips with ease sounds like a call for more time at the stones than warranted for a given project.

I use my RIs with a 35 deg tip angle as recommended by TFWW and they don't fail by large-scale chipping (as opposed to "micro-chipping" as the individual carbide particles along the edge come out). I think that's the minimum practical edge angle for D2 though.

[Steve Voigt]

The "pigstickers" or "oval bolstered" mortise chisels were called joiner's mortise chisels when they appeared in the late 19th century. They were considerably heavier than mortise chisels from the hand tool era. Oval bolster and pigsticker are modern names. The sash mortise chisel also appeared in the late 19th century. Since there were industrial mortise machines in use during this time, it is difficult to sort out what trades did what or to make generalizations. Charles Hayward says that cabinetmakers used sash mortise chisels in the early 20th century. The pigstickers are very awkward for deep mortises that are not very long, as in a cabinet door frame. Some people today make shallow mortises for stub tenons for which the pigstickers are fine.

In the 18th century mortise chisels were considerably lighter and were not differentiated into two groups. The chisels illustrated in Diderot and Roubo were more like sash mortise chisels than "pigstickers".


Oval bolsters appeared long before the late 19th c., though I think Waren is right that they weren't referred to as OBMCs, but just as mortise chisels. Here are a couple screenshots from the Seaton Tool chest book. These chisels were presumably made in the 1790s, very much still in the "hand tool era."

342690 342691

These chisels are pretty similar to my own OBMCs, which are probably early 20th c. Note the diagram of the oval bolster--the oval is perhaps not as pronounced as later chisels, but it's not that different. It's definitely true that these are smaller and more delicate than later chisels. The blades of these range from 5 5/8" to 6 1/8", whereas my later ones are up to an inch longer. The handles are similarly shorter on the Seaton chisels, so total length difference is 1 1/2" - 2", a substantial difference.

Another difference is that on most factory made OBMCs in the late 19th/ early 20th c., the handles at the narrow end are considerably wider and thicker than the bolsters, which is ugly, but easier to make. In the chisels above, the handles are nicely flush with the bolsters. I've reshaped several of my handles this way, flushing the ends to the bolsters and reducing the fat end by a commensurate amount. This makes the chisels a lot nicer to hold and use.

The most interesting thing about the second pic above is how pronounced the taper is, in both width and thickness. I bet most people today wouldn't buy a mortise chisel with such a pronounced taper in width; people tend to want their chisels to be exactly 3/8" or whatever, which is kind of silly if you're sawing the tenon to fit, but whatever.

Nonetheless, I just don't get why no one makes chisels like this. Why can't someone make a "pigsticker" with a simple high carbon blade and a decent beech handle? For that matter, why can't anyone make HCS bench chisels with thin tapered blades, octagonal bolsters, and no ferrules? Maybe this new Crucible outfit will make some. If not, someone should.

[Steve Voigt]

One more thing: If anyone is interested in reading more, Joel has a nice series on Mortise chisels, in five parts.

Part I (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/628)
Part II (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/633)
Part III (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/629)
Part IV (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/627)
Part V (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/623)

[Brian Holcombe]

I think that is a tough sell, they look quite expensive to produce and they need an experienced user who does not need a visual reference using the side of the chisel.

It would be awesome to see it come to production especially in laminated steel, but seems like very high risk.

[Rich Riddle]

This is one of those tools that's above my ability level, but there was a vast amount of good information in this thread. Thanks for the information.

[paul goldberg]

For that matter, why can't anyone make HCS bench chisels with thin tapered blades, octagonal bolsters, and no ferrules? Maybe this new Crucible outfit will make some. If not, someone should.


Why no ferrules? Other than looking like chisels from ~1850 rather than ~1880 what's the advantage?

I agree though that blades tapering in thickness and reverse tapering in width are a joy to work with. I have an old I.Sorby with such a blade and a forged octagonal bolster which I believe was made as late as 1945 and is my favourite chisel for most none dovetail work.

If someone did make good reproduction chisels I doubt the market would extend beyond those interested in the history of woodworking, which I imagine is a rather small niche.

[Patrick Chase]

Why no ferrules? Other than looking like chisels from ~1850 rather than ~1880 what's the advantage?

You don't need a ferrule if the bolster is as large as the base of the handle, as it is in a pigsticker.

When the bolster is smaller than the handle some of the impact load is transmitted up through the tang, causing splitting. The ferrule's role is to prevent that. With a full bolster and a properly fit handle (in particular if the tang isn't too tight) the impact loads are transmitted almost entirely to the bolster, with very little radial/splitting component.

Some pigstickers additionally have leather washers between the handle and the bolster to further cushion against impacts - I believe Joel goes into that in one of the TFWW articles Steve linked above.

[Patrick Chase]

It very well could be. If the mortise in the handle is a little too tight for the tang. I never really thought about that much. It could even been the wood it's self. I don't abuse my tools, but you do hit it with a mallet.

I thought about this some more today and I think you're dead on about tang fit. If the mortise is too small then the tang ends up carrying all of the load and that nice huge bolster is just along for the ride. That would explain why people typically don't see splitting with their hand-made (and presumably carefully fit) replacement handles.

Like a few people in his thread I love how pigstickers (and the RIs in particular) handle. That's very subjective, though.

[Warren Mickley]

Steve, I think my previous post was a little misleading. I was well aware that oval bolsters were made in the 18th century. In fact my Seaton chest book was still open to the page you show when I read your post. I would be pretty happy if I could buy the kind of 1796 chisels in the chest or the 18th c mortise chisels shown in Jay Gaynor's book. The late 19th century Joiner's mortise chisels are considerably heavier.

A late 19th century 3/16 mortise chisel that I own has a bolster that measures .81 X 1.41 while the corresponding chisel in the Seaton chest is .775 X .965. The 19th century tool is 46% bigger in the long axis. And while the widths are the same for the two chisels, the thickness is considerably greater for the later chisel, especially near the bolster.

Paul, we are suggesting that reproduction chisels that copy standards of 200 years ago would be better tools than current offerings, not just historically interesting.

[Stewie Simpson]

I am far from being a religious person, an atheist to be more exact, but all of this who-hare over the benefits gained by exotic steels reminds me of something quoted in the bible. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Focus more of your attention on refining your sharpening technique, and you will discover that traditional hcs will more than meet the requirements placed upon it. Additionally, hcs will reward you with a superior cutting edge, without the need to abandon your traditional honing stones.

Stewie;

[lowell holmes]

I also have two Narex mortise chisels that I'm happy with.

They are not Ray Iles chisels, but they chop mortises as fast as the more expensive ones.

[Stewie Simpson]

With a 30 degree secondary bevel (not a micro bevel), the Narex mortise chisels represent excellent value for money spent, and are hard to fault within their overall design.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/images/item/Woodworking/Chisels/10S0929s5.jpg

[Allan Speers]

Have you actually looked closely at the Ray Iles chisels or are you just hypothesizing?

The reason I ask is because:

1. They have full bolsters. In other words the flange on the blade at the base of the handle is large enough to cover the full cross-section of the handle, just like a socket.

2. The handle cross-section is absolutely huge.

While I'm sure that you could crack the handle on any chisel with enough abuse, the Iles ones are VERY well supported by the bolster, which prevents the tang from being driven further back into the handle as a result of pounding. In comparison the Veritas chisels have substantially smaller handles, and the socket is much smaller than the Iles' bolster and provides less mechanical support to the handle.


AFAIK, pounding is not the problem. They split when you put sideways pressure on them, in order to pry out your waste. A bolster can't prevent that & the tang weakens the handle in this regard.

[Stewie Simpson]

Allan, that's interesting you raise that point with the D2 Iles, from what I understand the tangs on their mortise chisels are only made from mild steel. Not a surprise considering D2 ranks poorly on impact toughness


. http://www.crucibleservice.com/eselector/general/generalgifs/chooseimpacttough.gif

[Steve Voigt]

Steve, I think my previous post was a little misleading. I was well aware that oval bolsters were made in the 18th century. In fact my Seaton chest book was still open to the page you show when I read your post. I would be pretty happy if I could buy the kind of 1796 chisels in the chest or the 18th c mortise chisels shown in Jay Gaynor's book. The late 19th century Joiner's mortise chisels are considerably heavier.

A late 19th century 3/16 mortise chisel that I own has a bolster that measures .81 X 1.41 while the corresponding chisel in the Seaton chest is .775 X .965. The 19th century tool is 46% bigger in the long axis. And while the widths are the same for the two chisels, the thickness is considerably greater for the later chisel, especially near the bolster.

Paul, we are suggesting that reproduction chisels that copy standards of 200 years ago would be better tools than current offerings, not just historically interesting.

Warren, I think I misread your post as well…I am sure you know this history better than I do. I would be pretty if I could buy those chisels too!

And, it's true that the later chisels are a lot fatter. 46% is a lot!

My most used furniture-size mortise chisel, 5/16", started life as a 3/8" and underwent major surgery. As a result, everything got ground down, including the bolster…it's no surprise that this chisel just feels nicer than most of my other OBMCs. Every time I pick up my 1/2", especially if I've been using the 5/16", I feel like I'm going out to hunt moose or something.

[Patrick Chase]

With a 30 degree secondary bevel (not a micro bevel), the Narex mortise chisels represent excellent value for money spent, and are hard to fault within their overall design.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/images/item/Woodworking/Chisels/10S0929s5.jpg

Yep, the Narex are great chisels for the money.

The only real criticism I have is that they "self-dub" a tiny bit, meaning that significant grinding on the bevel causes the back to slightly curl up at the tip. I suspect that there's some post-hardening residual stress such that the edges are under compression and the core is under tension.

[Stewie Simpson]

the tang and bolster are mild steel, they shouldn't be hard, only the blades are D2, the tang and bolster are welded to the end of the blade.
Yes, it was very clear after the first heat cycle that the bolster and tang are mild steel. In addition the weld line, previously invisible, was very evident due to surface oxidation/etching that happened during the heat.

reference post #4 and post #13 by Rob Streeper. http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/importance-testing-207606

[Steve Voigt]

Why no ferrules? Other than looking like chisels from ~1850 rather than ~1880 what's the advantage?


Fair question, and I can't really quantify it. Below are two of my most frequently used bench chisels: an old two cherries that I rehandled, and a ward with turned handle and ferrule. The two cherries just feels better.

I can't resist turning your question around: whats the advantage of the ferrule, since it's the part that was added later? My answer is, there is no advantage. It's an unnecessary add-on. Having used several unferruled chisels for a couple years now, I can't imagine splitting the handle. But, I don't use my chisel like it's a crowbar. I suspect that's what ferrules are for--to bail out people who use their chisels like crowbars. I can understand the attraction, but ultimately it's better to learn to use a chisel properly.



If someone did make good reproduction chisels I doubt the market would extend beyond those interested in the history of woodworking, which I imagine is a rather small niche.

You may be right; I don't know. I remember in the late 90s when Steve Knight started selling Krenov-style woodies. He was huge at the time, but I wonder if he could even stay in business if he were still making planes today. The market has changed and demand for more historically authentic tools has grown a lot. I wouldn't have imagined back then that people would buy new molding planes, but the few people who make them today sell them like hot cakes. And I don't think people buy molding planes because they're interested in the history of woodworking (at least not primarily); people buy them because they work. I'd buy good 18th c.-style chisels because they're a lot nicer to use, not because I want to be historically accurate. No puffy shirts for me! :p

342768

[Derek Cohen]

One of the comments I made earlier was that the RI chisels were a little narrower at the pointy end than the Veritas chisels (that I have). These Veritas chisels (and I doubt that the blades have changed from my sample) are very similar in dimensions in that area to the vintage chisels I have, such makers such as Ward and Sorby. However, the Veritas was deeper along the full length.

Here is a RI compared with a vintage chisel ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chisels/RayIlesmorticechisel3_zpscgk4rcs5.jpg

I doubt that the casual observer will notice much, but it is quite obvious in person.

Here is one of the Veritas to see the wider blade overall ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chisels/Veritas-mortice1_zpswjbpdx0d.jpg

Less like a OB and more like a (heavy duty) sash mortice chisel.

The other significant feature (for me) is that the RI has rounded lands at the face. The Veritas has quite sharp lands on both face and back. The vintage chisels I have would have been sharp as well, but often are dulled with time and use. I endeavour to put this back in. It makes a difference insofar as cutting the sides of the mortice.

Regarding length of blades, the average for the vintage chisels I have is around 7 1/2" (from memory). The Veritas were the same length as the others.

With a 20 degree primary bevel (which is how they and the RI are made) and a 35 degree secondary bevel, these chisels went through hardwood like a hot knife through butter. Both A2 and PM-V11 held an edge longer than I could chop. These are very good mortice chisels.

The important question is "should I get them?". My answer to that is another question, "Are they better enough to make a significant difference to the work you do?". The question is not whether the Veritas chisels are better - in my opinion they are better than the others I have - the question is whether they are an upgrade to your work. Only you can answer that. My opinion? I have used the RI and vintage chisels for many years - more than a decade - and I will switch to the Veritas ... because I can. However, I have been very happy with the RI and Wards et al, and these do not actually warrant an upgrade. They do the job very nicely. Having used the Veritas, it is harder to go back to them. However, if you have RI, and are satisfied, you have great chisels, and keep using them.

With regard the steel, the D2 of the RI holds an edge a long time. But so does the laminated HCS steel of the Wards and Sorbys, I do believe it depends a lot on how you chop mortices. For example, too thick and too deep will stress the edge more than needed, and reduce its useful life.

With regard to which design is stronger, the Veritas are built like the proverbial tank, and in fact I expect them to have much greater lateral strength to resist twisting and sidewise movement. This converts into improved forward movement. The deeper blades aid in registration as well. The sharp lands, upside and downside, improve cutting and reduce resistance.

Be aware in reading this review that I do not have the production chisels.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Derek, thanks for that picture. To my eye it does a better job of highlighting the Veritas chisels' design than do the ones on LV, though I may focus on different things than most of their customers.

You're right - they're beefier than I thought. It's still a sash mortise pattern, but it's super heavy duty. Out of curiosity how tall is the blade at that "PM" label? It looks much beefier than the "1/2 inch" that LV claims, assuming the image of the Veritas is to the same scale as the RI (which is about 3/4" at the bolster, at least on mine).

[Patrick Chase]

AFAIK, pounding is not the problem. They split when you put sideways pressure on them, in order to pry out your waste. A bolster can't prevent that & the tang weakens the handle in this regard.

Wow, you must really put a lot of pressure on those things. The amount of sideways force I can apply with my puny arm muscles couldn't possibly be enough to split a beech handle that thick . It's a pretty straightforward statics problem.

Maybe if you "jerked" it like a weightlifter who's trying to clear a few lbs too much, but I don't take thick enough cuts to need that. I may be overly conservative though, as I size my cuts so that the tip of the chisel does most of the levering (except for a little bit at the bottom) as I drive it down, and the "levering motion" mostly just cleans the chips out.

The instantaneous forces created by whacking with a mallet are vastly higher than what you can apply by pushing/pulling directly with your arms, even taking leverage (length of the handle vs length of the tang) into account.

[Kees Heiden]

Nonetheless, I just don't get why no one makes chisels like this. Why can't someone make a "pigsticker" with a simple high carbon blade and a decent beech handle? For that matter, why can't anyone make HCS bench chisels with thin tapered blades, octagonal bolsters, and no ferrules? Maybe this new Crucible outfit will make some. If not, someone should.

For me this is an interesting question too, because of my interest in the history of these tools. One of the reasons I think is that those 18th century models are really blacksmith work. And the guys at LV and LN are basically machinists. Making these models like a machinst (starting with bar stock, then milling and grinding) is a huge waste of material and time, while a blacksmith can move the steel in the right direction much quicker and without any loss of material. It gives a stronger product too, because the "grain" direction in the steel is being moved the right way around too, in contrast with the cutting action of the mill.

So when you want some of these elegant thin 18th century bench chisels with the nice octagon bolster and a good tang, then you will have to find a good blacksmith interested in this stuff. I know John Switzer from Black Bear forge has done some of this work, but he has of course a very small one man operation. For larer scale production you would have to look in Europe at one of the gouge makers, like Pfeill, Dastra, Two Cherries, Narex or the Iles brothers in England. The German and Swiss operations really work on a large scale with drop forges etc, but it would take quite some convincing to have them abandon their own models, firmly rooted in the tradition of 19th century Germany. Convincing the Iles should be easier, but I don't know if anyone ever tried.

I would love to try a bit myself, but it is very complex and difficult and still way beyond my pay grade as beginning amateur "blacksmith".

[Brian Holcombe]

Fair question, and I can't really quantify it. Below are two of my most frequently used bench chisels: an old two cherries that I rehandled, and a ward with turned handle and ferrule. The two cherries just feels better.

I can't resist turning your question around: whats the advantage of the ferrule, since it's the part that was added later? My answer is, there is no advantage. It's an unnecessary add-on. Having used several unferruled chisels for a couple years now, I can't imagine splitting the handle. But, I don't use my chisel like it's a crowbar. I suspect that's what ferrules are for--to bail out people who use their chisels like crowbars. can understand the attraction, but ultimately it's better to learn to use a chisel properly.

You may be right; I don't know. I remember in the late 90s when Steve Knight started selling Krenov-style woodies. He was huge at the time, but I wonder if he could even stay in business if he were still making planes today. The market has changed and demand for more historically authentic tools has grown a lot. I wouldn't have imagined back then that people would buy new molding planes, but the few people who make them today sell them like hot cakes. And I don't think people buy molding planes because they're interested in the history of woodworking (at least not primarily); people buy them because they work. I'd buy good 18th c.-style chisels because they're a lot nicer to use, not because I want to be historically accurate. No puffy shirts for me! :p

Steve,

That last part has been my experience as well, with planes. It made immediate sense to me that one would want tools from the era when the users lived on their ability to use their handtools. That has been logic behind going toward a somewhat strange direction of enjoying 18th and 19th century American/English tools along with current Japanese tools. Both offer frustration free results and having new makers reproducing them with accuracy makes that more tangible because one does not have to track down an original tool and restore it.

As I continue to improve my shop I find myself looking only in those two directions because I want the result of evolution rather than a one of solution which has not been put through the paces of trial and improvement.

It makes perfect sense to me, as well, that the hand tool renaissance has dug up these designs and has begun to reproduce them, starting with the tools used more frequently or without common alternative and eventually working their way down to the less common or more difficult items. I hope (and expect) it will continue as ability and interest follow.

I dont see the downside to a ferrule, even Japanese chisel I own has one and they are not made to be used as prybars, and really won't take being used that way. I would not want to see the 18th century chisel modified to suit it (it should be made accurately) but I do see why many makers go toward a ferrule instead. It's a separate part, rather than a big hunk of iron, and does not require being brazed on.

[Steve Voigt]

For me this is an interesting question too, because of my interest in the history of these tools. One of the reasons I think is that those 18th century models are really blacksmith work. And the guys at LV and LN are basically machinists. Making these models like a machinst (starting with bar stock, then milling and grinding) is a huge waste of material and time, while a blacksmith can move the steel in the right direction much quicker and without any loss of material. It gives a stronger product too, because the "grain" direction in the steel is being moved the right way around too, in contrast with the cutting action of the mill.

So when you want some of these elegant thin 18th century bench chisels with the nice octagon bolster and a good tang, then you will have to find a good blacksmith interested in this stuff. I know John Switzer from Black Bear forge has done some of this work, but he has of course a very small one man operation. For larer scale production you would have to look in Europe at one of the gouge makers, like Pfeill, Dastra, Two Cherries, Narex or the Iles brothers in England. The German and Swiss operations really work on a large scale with drop forges etc, but it would take quite some convincing to have them abandon their own models, firmly rooted in the tradition of 19th century Germany. Convincing the Iles should be easier, but I don't know if anyone ever tried.

I would love to try a bit myself, but it is very complex and difficult and still way beyond my pay grade as beginning amateur "blacksmith".

I think there are a lot of obstacles to the blacksmithing approach. First is that in the blacksmithing era, labor was cheap and materials were expensive, whereas now the reverse is true. Blacksmithing is very labor intensive. Second is that it's extremely skilled labor, and few people know how to do it, whereas there are comparatively more skilled machinists. Third is that to scale up with blacksmithing would actually be more expensive (I think, not absolutely sure about that): drop forges and trip hammers are expensive.

I used to program a CNC mill pretty similar to the one Raney bought recently. I'm sure the older style chisels could be made pretty easily; I don't think they would be any harder than what LN or LV are doing today. I think the real obstacle is that no one believes that people would buy these chisels, at least not enough of them to make it worthwhile. And that's probably true for big outfits, but I bet a one-person outfit could make a go of it. Blue Spruce, for example, seems to be successful. All it would take is someone similar who's interested in a more traditional design.

[Matt Radtke]

Has anyone taken a picture of how trapezoidale the Vertias chisels taper? Or can be be compared to a RI or Narex? I'm ready to upgrade my most-used Narex models and was completely ready to swing for RI, and now this happened. I've really come to appreciate the shape and I'm not ready to give it up...

[Steve Voigt]

Steve,

That last part has been my experience as well, with planes. It made immediate sense to me that one would want tools from the era when the users lived on their ability to use their handtools. That has been logic behind going toward a somewhat strange direction of enjoying 18th and 19th century American/English tools along with current Japanese tools. Both offer frustration free results and having new makers reproducing them with accuracy makes that more tangible because one does not have to track down an original tool and restore it.

As I continue to improve my shop I find myself looking only in those two directions because I want the result of evolution rather than a one of solution which has not been put through the paces of trial and improvement.

It makes perfect sense to me, as well, that the hand tool renaissance has dug up these designs and has begun to reproduce them, starting with the tools used more frequently or without common alternative and eventually working their way down to the less common or more difficult items. I hope (and expect) it will continue as ability and interest follow.

I dont see the downside to a ferrule, even Japanese chisel I own has one and they are not made to be used as prybars, and really won't take being used that way. I would not want to see the 18th century chisel modified to suit it (it should be made accurately) but I do see why many makers go toward a ferrule instead. It's a separate part, rather than a big hunk of iron, and does not require being brazed on.


Brian,

I think we are on the same page…I particularly like your comments about "frustration-free results" and wanting "tools from the era when the users lived on their ability to use their handtools."

The ferrule thing is getting over-emphasized…I made an offhand comment that obviously rubbed a couple people the wrong way. It's not a big deal to me if there are ferrules. Similarly, I don't care that much if mortise chisels taper in width, or even if they are laminated vs. solid. If someone made chisels that looked just like the Ray Isles pigstickers, but in O1 instead of D2, I would declare victory. Same thing with bench chisels: if someone made a chisel like the Ward or 2 cherries I posted earlier (I forgot to put up the photo earlier, but it's there now), that would be a win. I'm thinking broad strokes here. Not everyone is going to agree on the details anyway.

[Kees Heiden]

I think there are a lot of obstacles to the blacksmithing approach. First is that in the blacksmithing era, labor was cheap and materials were expensive, whereas now the reverse is true. Blacksmithing is very labor intensive. Second is that it's extremely skilled labor, and few people know how to do it, whereas there are comparatively more skilled machinists. Third is that to scale up with blacksmithing would actually be more expensive (I think, not absolutely sure about that): drop forges and trip hammers are expensive.

I used to program a CNC mill pretty similar to the one Raney bought recently. I'm sure the older style chisels could be made pretty easily; I don't think they would be any harder than what LN or LV are doing today. I think the real obstacle is that no one believes that people would buy these chisels, at least not enough of them to make it worthwhile. And that's probably true for big outfits, but I bet a one-person outfit could make a go of it. Blue Spruce, for example, seems to be successful. All it would take is someone similar who's interested in a more traditional design.

You probably remember the 18th century style chisels Larry Williams and Don McConnel made from bar stock. They sure did complain about the amount of material they had to remove. Starting with a drop forging should get the basic shape pretty close and the rest could be machined or smithed. But like you say, that's expensive, not just the press but also the dies. Only larger scale production would be economical.

But look at the catalogue from Ashley Iles page 4-5: http://www.ashleyiles.co.uk/Catalogue.pdf Here they show how they make gouges with simple tools. It wouldn't be so difficult to transform this method to make 18th century chisels! Companies like this make 100's of various gouges and there is a lot of handwork involved, and theire prices are very reaonable. The Pfeill gouges actually look a lot like the old English chisels. But when they make chisels themselves, they look completely different! No idea why really.

[John Schtrumpf]

... The Pfeill gouges actually look a lot like the old English chisels. But when they make chisels themselves, they look completely different! No idea why really.
Look closer at the Pfeil catalogue. They make #1 sweep carving chisels, single bevel, double bevel and skew, although they are in a firmer chisel style. I don't know what the larger sizes are like, but I have an 8mm skew, 5mm skew and 3mm single bevel. The 8mm skew is thinner than my 6mm Pfeil bench chisel.

[Derek Cohen]

Has anyone taken a picture of how trapezoidale the Vertias chisels taper? Or can be be compared to a RI or Narex? I'm ready to upgrade my most-used Narex models and was completely ready to swing for RI, and now this happened. I've really come to appreciate the shape and I'm not ready to give it up...

A photo will note show the level of trapezoidism. It needs to be measured. But I have those figures :)

What complicates this measurement is that the blades are different depths ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chisels/Mortice-chisels_zpsqhayxkhv.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chisels/Mortice-blades_zpsnpe1hlfz.jpg

Measure the thickness at the back of the blade and measure again at the face of the blade, both taken behind the primary bevel, and then take the difference of the two measurements:

RI = 0.11mm (6.11 - 6.00mm)
Ward = 0.22mm (6.42 - 6.20mm)
Veritas = 0.96mm (6.46 - 5.50mm)

These measurements were taken with a digital calliper.

It looks like the Veritas has the most taper, however it is also the widest blade, so will show the greatest difference in end measurements. How wide are the blades? Measurements taken behind the primary bevel and at the start of the bolster ...

RI = 11mm front; 18mm rear
Ward = 12mm front; 18mm rear
Veritas = 14mm front; 17mm rear

The other photo of relevance is the backs of the Veritas and RI. Not the sharp lands of the Veritas and the rounded back of the RI. The sharp lands aid in a clean cut.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chisels/Mortice-backs_zpsijnuwycz.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Look closer at the Pfeil catalogue. They make #1 sweep carving chisels, single bevel, double bevel and skew, although they are in a firmer chisel style. I don't know what the larger sizes are like, but I have an 8mm skew, 5mm skew and 3mm single bevel. The 8mm skew is thinner than my 6mm Pfeil bench chisel.

You're right John, here is a picture of an early 19th century Ibottson pairing chisel and a modern Dastra #1 sweep gouge. The first has a wider, much nicer bolster and nicer shoulders, but the Dastra is almost there. Only a little extra effort would have them making what we want. The thickness is almost the same as you can see.

342775

[Kees Heiden]

Are you sure about your last remark Derek? The sharp(LV) or rounded (RI) edges you show are where the chisel is thinner, creating clearance in the mortice, thus I suspect they won't do much cutting. The other side of the chisel, where the lands are touching the face of the chisel are probably rather sharp on both, and because this side has the exact same width as the mortice, sharpness here helps to scrape the sides of the mortice.

[Derek Cohen]

Kees, actually, I believe that you are correct (sound of me smacking my head ..... unless .... as you know, here in Oz we do everything upsidedown). Certainly, the sharp lands at the face of the blade really do help in cleaning the sidewalls.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks for clearing up that it was just an upside down Ozzie thing ;)

[Stewie Simpson]

Kees, its not an ozzie thing, its just another unbiased tool review. ;)


With regard blade tests, it is easy to write "X performed better than Y" and provide the conditions for this.

[john zulu]

I only have preproduction versions with a variety of handle sizes and blade steels. I cannot therefore comment about the handles too much since I have not used the production versions, but I really like the general shape, and used them both with- and without the steel hoop. Even without the hoop they failed to show signs of wear.

What I can say is that these are the best mortice chisels I have used. My go to chisels have been Ray Isles, which are excellent, and a bunch of vintage Wards (which are nearly as good in edge holding as the RI D2 blades).

Where the Veritas shade the RI is in the blade design. The Veritas are slightly deeper, with more side registration near the bevel end. The lands are sharp front and back. These features translate into more control and smoother walls.

I obtained great results from both A2 and PM-V11. I do not doubt that the PM steel is better, however I found that the A2 just kept on going, and I never could discover the duration each held an edge. For all practical purposes, either should hold an edge through the longest morticing session you choose to endure.

Regards from Perth

Derek

@Derek: Did you write a review on this new chisels?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi John

I am not in a position to write a review, and not really motivated to do so anyway. However I am in a position to offer some information since I have had the (pre-production) chisels around for quite a while.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Joel Moskowitz]

Derek,
Your Iles chisel with the rounded fronts are old production. ray no longer makes them that way and the front is square.
Joel

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks for the update Joel.

Any thoughts about advantages/disadvantages of deeper/shallower blades, and a high (35 degree) secondary bevel on a shallow (20 degree) primary bevel versus a single 35 degree primary bevel?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Joel Moskowitz]

Derek,
I think the lower the primary angle the better, although at some point the primary angle can be too low and the chisel top will break or bend. 20 degrees seems about right, although a little less seems to be fine, and more works, just less efficiently. A 35 degree primary bevel is a lot lot harder to bang into the wood and I cannot image why anyone would use it but apparently they do. A small secondary bevel of 35 degrees or more is important to keep the edge intact.

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Joel. That is the formula I have followed. When asked why, I generally quote you in this regard. Is there historical support for this configuration?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

When I try to meassure the primairy bevels of the mortice chisels in the Seaton Chest book, I find something between 20 and 25 degrees at the tip. Of course I can't meassure a secundairy bevel from a photograph. BTW, those primary bevels are rounded. The angle becomes increasingly less when you go further away from the tip.

342894

[Patrick Chase]

Derek,
I think the lower the primary angle the better, although at some point the primary angle can be too low and the chisel top will break or bend. 20 degrees seems about right, although a little less seems to be fine, and more works, just less efficiently. A 35 degree primary bevel is a lot lot harder to bang into the wood and I cannot image why anyone would use it but apparently they do. A small secondary bevel of 35 degrees or more is important to keep the edge intact.

I use 20 primary / 35 secondary on my RIs (and previously used that configuration on my Narex mortise chisels) and it works quite nicely for me. Like Derek I think I got the idea from Joel's suggestion.

IMO one key is to keep the secondary fairly small so that you're not doing a lot of compressing with the tip. The secondary is there to keep the tip from chipping/folding, and it doesn't need to be large for that.

[steven c newman]

This is one of the chisels I use
342915
And I think I will keep using it.
"New Haven Edge Tool Co." is stamped on the side of the blade.
Been using it a lot lately. Couple of swipes on the leg of my jeans, and it is ready to go.
May give the ones from Butcher a try later....and if I ever need a 12mm wide mortise, I have a chisel from Okinawa to do that job.

[Warren Mickley]

Blacksmith Peter Ross made an extremely detailed drawing of each mortise chisel in the Seaton chest. Ross detailed grinding marks, filing marks, "glazing", and very carefully mapped out every undulation in the weld line, but did not show any secondary bevel. Here is a mortise chisel from Andre Roubo:
342922342921

[Kees Heiden]

I can't remember that Peter Ross paid attention to sharpening issues anywhere in the book. So, I don't know if he would have detailed a small secundairy bevel or not. When I look at the drawings from the mortice chisels, then on most of them the area of the edge isn't very sharply defined as it is in this picture of Roubo.

When I meassure on my screen then the angle of the Roubo chisel is exactly 25 degrees. And like I wrote above, the angles of the primairy bevels of the Seaton chisels are between 20 and 25 degrees. So, either they managed to chop mortices with such shallow angles, or they added a secundairy bevel.

[Patrick Chase]

I can't remember that Peter Ross paid attention to sharpening issues anywhere in the book. So, I don't know if he would have detailed a small secundairy bevel or not. When I look at the drawings from the mortice chisels, then on most of them the area of the edge isn't very sharply defined as it is in this picture of Roubo.

When I meassure on my screen then the angle of the Roubo chisel is exactly 25 degrees. And like I wrote above, the angles of the primairy bevels of the Seaton chisels are between 20 and 25 degrees. So, either they managed to chop mortices with such shallow angles, or they added a secundairy bevel.

I think it's worth noting again that secondary bevels can be quite small and still be effective, as in this case they're mostly stabilizing the grain structure immediately behind the edge. If you looked at a side profile of any of my mortise chisels they'd look identical to the picture Warren posted. You need to have an image taken from the front and with favorable lighting to make any determination.

My experience with mortising in hard woods with HCS chisels at 20-25 deg tip angle is that they fold.

[Chuck Nickerson]

Kees, its not an ozzie thing, its just another unbiased tool review. ;)

So which Lee Valley/Veritas tool(s) has Derek positively reviewed that did not deserve it?

[Patrick Chase]

So which Lee Valley/Veritas tool(s) has Derek positively reviewed that did not deserve it?

None that I know of, though "deserve" is obviously very subjective.

I think (but am not absolutely positive, and don't have time or inclination to re-read everything) that Derek has reviewed tools for which he provided some level of pre-release testing and feedback. I'm quite sure that he's always been up-front about his degree of involvement, but it looks like he may now have a more restrictive policy with respect to tools he directly worked on. At least I assume that's what he means when he says he's used the mortise chisels but isn't in a position to review them.

It's also possible that LV asked him not to review tools he works on regardless of disclosure, to avoid any appearance of shilling. I've had employers with such policies and IMO it's a smart thing to do, particularly if you have a strong reputation to begin with.

[Joel Moskowitz]

If the Seaton chisels don't have a secondary bevel there is a good chance that the reason is that they were never used. From the factory you would not see a secondary bevel.
In theory the lower the primary angle you go the better, with two caveats: unless there is a secondary bevel a low primary bevel angle will cause the edge to crumble easily. Even a tiny secondary bevel prevents that so it's not much of an issue.
Two: if the primary angle is too low the chisel can bend or break when you lever out material. THat is you lowered the primary angle so you can easily penetrate deep into the wood, but when you lever out the chisel isn't strong enough to prevent it. That 20-25 degree primary angleseems a good compromise. D2, which is very tough can take a lower primary angle than carbon steel, and that's one reason I like it for mortise chisels.

The reason Mortise chisels don't have ferrules and and have an oval handle is that the oval handle allows a lot of strength in the direction of pulling but still gives a smaller section to make it comfortable to hold. And the oval helps you orient the chisel in the hand.
When ferrules were introduced as a general handle solution in the 1840's every other type of chisel lost their wide bolsters and adopted a ferrule. (Mass introduction of socket chisels is a later introduction, mostly American) But for mortise chisels there is no way to put on an oval ferrule effieently so the style persisted.

In order to properly forge a wide bolster on a chisel you need some interesting forging tools, not impossible but not easy. Every blacksmith who I know who has production ability to do a run of chisels has thought about it and declined. Not that I have given up but earlty 18th century style chisels disappeared for a reason. Unlike Mortise chisels where the original design was deemed superior to a new fangled design, the minute ferruled bench chisels appeared the ferrulless versions disappeared. When beveled edge chisels appeared ion the 1850-60s, and the bevels were hand ground in, the thin chisels we see in the seaton chest also disappeared. You can argue that it was a less expensive way of manufacture and that's true, but the customers bought them and they were fine chisels.

While I love the idea of making real early 19th century chisels, and I know that people want them and will appriciate them I think the market is limited. The other thing to realize than the single biggest motivation in new chisels (which garners good reviews and the way magazines test chisels) has been edge retention, not ergonomics, or appropriateness in use.

[Hilton Ralphs]

I think (but am not absolutely positive, and don't have time or inclination to re-read everything) that Derek has reviewed tools for which he provided some level of pre-release testing and feedback. I'm quite sure that he's always been up-front about his degree of involvement, but it looks like he may now have a more restrictive policy with respect to tools he directly worked on. At least I assume that's what he means when he says he's used the mortise chisels but isn't in a position to review them.


Didn't Derek mention that he only had access to the prototype and thus could not review the final product?

[Warren Mickley]

I can't remember that Peter Ross paid attention to sharpening issues anywhere in the book. So, I don't know if he would have detailed a small secundairy bevel or not. When I look at the drawings from the mortice chisels, then on most of them the area of the edge isn't very sharply defined as it is in this picture of Roubo.

When I meassure on my screen then the angle of the Roubo chisel is exactly 25 degrees. And like I wrote above, the angles of the primairy bevels of the Seaton chisels are between 20 and 25 degrees. So, either they managed to chop mortices with such shallow angles, or they added a secundairy bevel.

When we use a mortise chisel, we ride the bevel for many of the cuts. This technique just doesn't work very well with a compound bevel.

Recently I bought a 19th century mortise chisel. It looked like it had not been used for many years, but the seller must have been reading blogs or something, because it was freshly ground to a long 18 degree bevel with a small micro bevel. Because of this I got a chance to try the micro bevel technique.

As one would expect the chisel rode the bevel poorly. One of the important aspects of a mortise chisel is its self jigging quality. When it rides on the bevel it is held securely at a constant angle. And as it moves down, the sides of the chisel engage the walls from previous cuts, also adding jigging and stability. But with the long shallow bevel, much of the thickness was cut away compromising the jigging. There is little gain from having such a thick chisel with nice wide sidewalls if much of it is cut away. Another thing I noticed with the blog configuration was that it had a poor heel that was well up on the chisel, making levering awkward. So three problems: 1) poor riding bevel, 2) poor sidewall engagement, 3) poor heel. And it would be harder to keep a constant angle on the bevel when sharpening. I don't think you will see a Japanese mortise chisel with this configuration.

Last night I altered this chisel to have a flat 25 degree bevel as you suggested, Kees. This worked much better: much more secure, smoother operation, which is easier on the edge, and more secure sharpening. I mortised white oak, jarrah, hickory, and hard maple. I prefer 30 degrees, but 25 is certainly a lot better than a secondary bevel.

[lowell holmes]

I have Ray Iles, Narex, and Lie Nielsen mortise chisels. I can't imagine splitting the handles on any of them.

I learned to mortise using Blue Handle bevel edge chisels. I never broke a chisel. You guys that split handles must really be prying too much wood out.

I didn't know what a mortise chisel was for a long time. I remember reading the rec wood news group, there was a guy breaking his blue handle chisels.
I never understood why he was prying so much wood. Of course I learned to mortise wood from Paul Sellers. He never was a whack-a-way wood worker. :)

[Kees Heiden]

When we use a mortise chisel, we ride the bevel for many of the cuts. This technique just doesn't work very well with a compound bevel.

Recently I bought a 19th century mortise chisel. It looked like it had not been used for many years, but the seller must have been reading blogs or something, because it was freshly ground to a long 18 degree bevel with a small micro bevel. Because of this I got a chance to try the micro bevel technique.

As one would expect the chisel rode the bevel poorly. One of the important aspects of a mortise chisel is its self jigging quality. When it rides on the bevel it is held securely at a constant angle. And as it moves down, the sides of the chisel engage the walls from previous cuts, also adding jigging and stability. But with the long shallow bevel, much of the thickness was cut away compromising the jigging. There is little gain from having such a thick chisel with nice wide sidewalls if much of it is cut away. Another thing I noticed with the blog configuration was that it had a poor heel that was well up on the chisel, making levering awkward. So three problems: 1) poor riding bevel, 2) poor sidewall engagement, 3) poor heel. And it would be harder to keep a constant angle on the bevel when sharpening. I don't think you will see a Japanese mortise chisel with this configuration.

Last night I altered this chisel to have a flat 25 degree bevel as you suggested, Kees. This worked much better: much more secure, smoother operation, which is easier on the edge, and more secure sharpening. I mortised white oak, jarrah, hickory, and hard maple. I prefer 30 degrees, but 25 is certainly a lot better than a secondary bevel.

How is the edge holding up at 25 degrees?

As usual I am allways interested in something new for me. I have a large mortising job coming up the next few weeks and will give it a try also.

[Prashun Patel]

" But with the long shallow bevel, much of the thickness was cut away compromising the jigging."

Warren-

Can you expand on this? I'm unclear what this means. I understand the riding bevel concept, but do not understand why the steepness compromises this.

[Mike Holbrook]

I finally got around to reading this thread. It is interesting to me that this new chisel design is being compared to old pig sticker designs vs Japanese mortise chisel designs. At least initially, the blade shape and seating in the handle seems to me to have as many or more similarities to Japanese designs.

I am also wondering why those who prefer simpler high carbon steels and laminated steels are not mentioning the Japanese designs? I think there are used Japanese mortise chisels available on auction sites. David Weaver pointed me to one back when he posted here.

[steven c newman]

Recently picked this one..
342966
No, I haven't tried to sharpen it..
342967
This is how it arrived here
342968
And the hollowed back. This is a 12mm wide chisel.....
342969
All the way from Okinawa, Japan.

[Patrick Chase]

One of the important aspects of a mortise chisel is its self jigging quality. When it rides on the bevel it is held securely at a constant angle. And as it moves down, the sides of the chisel engage the walls from previous cuts, also adding jigging and stability. But with the long shallow bevel, much of the thickness was cut away compromising the jigging.

The sides of most mortise chisels are tapered. such that all of the lateral jigging is coming from the base edges (the widest part of the chisel). The sides do provide some jigging in rotation, but you shouldn't need that anyway as you should be able to guide the chisel to within less than the taper angle by eye and handle feel. I don't see where you're losing anything that matters here.

[Mike Holbrook]

Steven,

Your chisel looks similar to mine but mine is more like 18mm. Mine had a piece nocked out of the corner. It took me quite a while to remove it using a DMT coarse plate, which is all I had at the time. I may regrind it with my CBN wheel, even if it leaves a little hollow. The edge is still a little off. I believe I can make the edge straighter with the CBN wheel.

[lowell holmes]

My Lie Nielsen mortise chisels are square. They are more like a sash chisel. I have Ray Iles and Narex mortise chisels that have tapered sides.

Designed with cabinetmaking in mind, these well-balanced Mortise Chisels are ground with parallel sides and are thicker than they are wide to help keep them straight in the cut. Hornbeam handles. They are made of A2 Tool Steel, hardened to Rockwell 60-62, cryogenically treated and double tempered. Available sizes: 1/10 ", 3/16", 1/4", 5/16", 3/8", 1/2"

[Derek Cohen]

If Warren says a 30 degree primary bevel works best for him, I believe him.

If Kees says a 25 degree primary bevel works best for him, I believe him as well.

And if Joel argues for a 20 degree primary bevel, he is no doubt as right as the others.

The question is why are they all right?

I have been searching for videos of doyens of woodworking to see what they technique is. There are several ways to use a mortice chisel to create a mortice, and I suspect that the reason one finds one design better is that is suits their method.

A few observations ...

Some strike deeply and do not lever chips. That would be best with a low primary bevel. Warren maintains that a high primary bevel facilitates levering. Would the deeper Veritas blades compensate for a shallow primary bevel?

A Japanese mortice chisel has a 30 degree bevel and parallel sides, but the sides are hollowed to facilitate release. I watched Jim Kingshott demonstrate the use of his Japanese mortice chisels. He did not drive his blades in as deeply as I might with a OB and low primary bevel, but he levered the chips out more frequently that I would.

A Oval Bolstered style is relieved at the sides to release more easily. All the ones I have seen have a 20 degree (or there abouts) primary bevel. It strikes me that this design favours more frequent deep chops and less levering.

I recall the Dutch mortice chisels of Kees are tapered thicker towards the bevel. This also aids in release. Does the design do more?

Do you think that chisel design is matched by morticing method?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Not sure, as I usually strike the chisel once, maybe twice. Chips are pared out, rarely levered out. With these oldsters I have, I have to be careful....
342972
Kind of a hodge-podge, but it is what it is...
342973
Not too sure about the German one on the right....

[Kees Heiden]

Just to be sure, mine have a 25 degree primairy plus something like 30 degree secundairy. I am as curious as you are, don't regard myself much ad a mortising expert to draw any definitive conclusions.

Digging around in the history a little I found angles like 20 - 25 degrees. I wonder if that is enough to survive mortising. You usually read about much higher edge angles for this purpose.

[Steve Voigt]

…
When ferrules were introduced as a general handle solution in the 1840's every other type of chisel lost their wide bolsters and adopted a ferrule. (Mass introduction of socket chisels is a later introduction, mostly American) But for mortise chisels there is no way to put on an oval ferrule effieently so the style persisted.

In order to properly forge a wide bolster on a chisel you need some interesting forging tools, not impossible but not easy. Every blacksmith who I know who has production ability to do a run of chisels has thought about it and declined. Not that I have given up but earlty 18th century style chisels disappeared for a reason. Unlike Mortise chisels where the original design was deemed superior to a new fangled design, the minute ferruled bench chisels appeared the ferrulless versions disappeared. When beveled edge chisels appeared ion the 1850-60s, and the bevels were hand ground in, the thin chisels we see in the seaton chest also disappeared. You can argue that it was a less expensive way of manufacture and that's true, but the customers bought them and they were fine chisels.
…


You make some good and thought-provoking points, Joel. There were a lot of innovations in the second half of the 19th c., some good, others not so much. Personally (talking only about bench chisels here), I prefer beveled sides; they are functional. But as for ferrules, I'm still waiting for just one experienced user to give me a good functional justification for them. To me, they add nothing.

Earlier Kees referred to some chisels that Larry and Don made for their own use. Here's a screenshot (I don't think those guys will mind):

343015

To me, these are basically perfect. There's nothing superfluous. And since several of my own chisels are set up this way, I know the ergonomics are great.



While I love the idea of making real early 19th century chisels, and I know that people want them and will appriciate them I think the market is limited. The other thing to realize than the single biggest motivation in new chisels (which garners good reviews and the way magazines test chisels) has been edge retention, not ergonomics, or appropriateness in use.

I have no doubt you are right. Most buyers are beginners, so the big makers cater to that audience by making chisels that can goes as long as possible without sharpening, and can stand up to being abused when said beginners keep using them long past the point where they should've been sharpened.

But that market is saturated. Can anyone seriously argue that there aren't enough choices for beginners who want massive D2 or A2 chisels?

In the meantime, almost every skilled, experienced user I know values ergonomics, lightness, elegance, and ease of sharpening, and puts edge retention in last place. Surely that is a market that could be served? It'll never be the main market--that'll always be dominated by beginner's needs--but I bet there's enough of a market for a small shop or two. I just requires a little courage to buck what the magazines and other "experts" insist that we need.

[Jim Koepke]

In the meantime, almost every skilled, experienced user I know values ergonomics, lightness, elegance, and ease of sharpening, and puts edge retention in last place. Surely that is a market that could be served?

One problem with that market is many chisel buyers will make their own handles to fit their own ergonomics.

There might be a niche market in chisels sans handles. Handle blanks with the tang mortise pre-cut could be an add on for tang chisels.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Steve

In my own evaluations of chisels, I look at ergonomics, feedback and edge durability. The thing with magazine reviews is that it is easiest to demonstrate edge holding as one can point to numbers. Number include hardness, impact resistance and abrasion resistance. Feedback and ergonomics are much harder to quantify.

How would you describe the handles of the chisels above (those ones are Larry's?). Those are bench chisels. How would you use them for chopping and paring? And why?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

" But with the long shallow bevel, much of the thickness was cut away compromising the jigging."

Warren-

Can you expand on this? I'm unclear what this means. I understand the riding bevel concept, but do not understand why the steepness compromises this.

Prashun, I missed your question yesterday. The thickness keeps the chisel from twisting about the long axis of the chisel. The thickness is most needed in the earlier stages of making the mortise when straightness of the cut is being established. When riding on the bevel, the chisel travels into the cavity made by previous cuts, which is where we get the jigging. This keeps the chisel from twisting and from leaning to one side. If you look at the Roubo chisel, it is widest at the heel of the bevel where the thickness is most needed.

Mike Holbrook asked why one wouldn't just buy a Japanese mortise chisel. You certainly don't see Japanese chisels with "primary and secondary bevels". For myself I don't like the Japanese handles, and the tangs are not as nicely formed as what I like. I also prefer the more tempered English tools. I certainly don't like the Lee Valley handles either, and the tangs appear to be rather skimpy, a weak point.

[Warren Mickley]

The sides of most mortise chisels are tapered. such that all of the lateral jigging is coming from the base edges (the widest part of the chisel). The sides do provide some jigging in rotation, but you shouldn't need that anyway as you should be able to guide the chisel to within less than the taper angle by eye and handle feel. I don't see where you're losing anything that matters here.

I think you are really wrong here, Patrick. The tapering really needs only be in proportion to how accurately the chisel is ground. The more accurately the angles are ground and the more consistent the thickness, the less need for any tapering. And any tapering, front to back or along the length, should not be enough to be noticeable in use. The chisel ought to be secure in the cut, not need to be held from twisting by hand manipulation.

[Stewie Simpson]

Three sets of chisels designed to meet the specific needs of making side escapement planes.

Bevel Edge Paring Chisels. (the handle shape that Steve posted for these chisels suggests they were not designed to be struck with a wooden mallet.)


https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1004879_618704771497350_1858418278_n.jpg?oh=608b5b a125c99eb16e09d10cd9a364df&oe=585BEF0E



https://www.facebook.com/171606192873879/photos/ms.c.eJw1x7ENACAAArCPDCgC~;v~_Yi3ar2UBJaYEefqdO1sZ ~;1QV3XuaeCZw~-.bps.a.618704734830687.1073741825.171606192873879/618704771497350/?type=3&theater

[Steve Voigt]

How would you describe the handles of the chisels above (those ones are Larry's?). Those are bench chisels. How would you use them for chopping and paring? And why?



I'm not sure I understand the question, Derek. How would I use them? I'd use them like any other bench chisel. I'd use them in most normal situations that require chopping or paring. My only quibble with these is that I'd rather have handles with a single taper, from front to back, like the one I showed earlier, or the ones in the Seaton book. Those are a little stouter and probably better for things like chopping dovetails. I would guess that Larry and Don don't chop a lot of dovetails (and I don't either), which probably biases those guys towards the more delicate handle style. But I have made DTs with the two chisels I showed before; in particular I chop plenty of end grain with the Ward chisel.

As far as "why" would I use them goes: I'd use them because they don't feel clunky. The handles feel good, and the facets orient the chisel without looking and feel more secure than a round handle. If I want to slide my thumb over the handle and onto the tang, it's a nice smooth transition, whereas a ferrule feels sharp and uncomfortable. And the O1 (or cast steel for old chisels) is quick and easy to sharpen.

By the way, I can think of a bunch of other people who work mostly or entirely by hand who use the Seaton style handles with no ferrule. Warren, Kees (I think), Zach Dillinger. On Instagram, you can find lots of pictures of this style in the feeds of Darryl Gent and Joshua Klein. I don't think it's an accident that some people who work mostly by hand use these types of chisels. And as I said before, it's not about role playing or being part of the puffy shirt crowd.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Steve

I clearly did not articulate the question well. You wrote earlier about ergonomics being missing from reviews, so I asked you to describe the ergonomics in using these/your chisels. We are now off the topic of mortise chisels and onto bench chisels, so this may not be a good idea here. Save it for another thread.

Perhaps Warren can say what he likes in a handle for a mortice chisel, and why.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Paul Sidener]

I have no doubt you are right. Most buyers are beginners, so the big makers cater to that audience by making chisels that can goes as long as possible without sharpening, and can stand up to being abused when said beginners keep using them long past the point where they should've been sharpened.

But that market is saturated. Can anyone seriously argue that there aren't enough choices for beginners who want massive D2 or A2 chisels?

In the meantime, almost every skilled, experienced user I know values ergonomics, lightness, elegance, and ease of sharpening, and puts edge retention in last place. Surely that is a market that could be served? It'll never be the main market--that'll always be dominated by beginner's needs--but I bet there's enough of a market for a small shop or two. I just requires a little courage to buck what the magazines and other "experts" insist that we need.


One problem with that market is many chisel buyers will make their own handles to fit their own ergonomics.

There might be a niche market in chisels sans handles. Handle blanks with the tang mortise pre-cut could be an add on for tang chisels.

jtk

The problem when talking about ergonomics, is people. Everyone is different. I am 5'8" with small hands. For someone that is 6'4" they will have much bigger hands, needing a larger handle. Manufactures don't offer different sized handles. That is the reason I prefer chisels with socket handles, they tend to be smaller. While I like Jim's idea about the chisels sans handle. Sadly I don't see that going anywhere. Most people aren't going to pay top dollar if they have to do the work, before the tool can be used. I don't blame the manufactures, for offering just one handle. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense. Usually the more options equals more overhead and expense, that gets passed on to the consumer.

The chisel is probably the most simple tool in the tool chest. Yet here is seven pages of discussion on it.

[David Carroll]

Back in the 1980s (iirc) Eugene Landon wrote an article (FWW) on making a mortise chisel. It was "pig sticker" in shape, but there was no tang, the steel went all the way back, and the handles were brass scales that were riveted on. So the mallet struck the back end of the blade directly in line and levering wouldn't cause harm. Seems sensible, in light of this very interesting discussion. Easy enough to make also, out of bar stock.

DC

[lowell holmes]

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-content/uploads/MORTISE_BY_HAND.pdf

Check this article . It's the best I've seen. You don't need to be destructive when chopping mortises.

[Patrick Chase]

I think you are really wrong here, Patrick. The tapering really needs only be in proportion to how accurately the chisel is ground. The more accurately the angles are ground and the more consistent the thickness, the less need for any tapering. And any tapering, front to back or along the length, should not be enough to be noticeable in use. The chisel ought to be secure in the cut, not need to be held from twisting by hand manipulation.

Obviously you're somebody who prefers registered mortise chisels, along the lines of what L-N sells today (though there are many examples through history). I think that's a perfectly reasonable subjective preference, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that other chisel configurations are also valid.

If you look at classic pigstickers, the modern Ray Iles version thereof, Narex, and now Veritas they're all tapered by ~1 deg on the sides ("front to back" as you call it).The same is true of many 18th and 19th C mortise chisels - I'll let Joel fill in specifics if he cares to. That's far more than is (or realistically was even in the 18th C) needed for grinding accuracy. It's done on purpose to prevent binding and allow the back<->side edges to do all of the work.

That front-to-back taper isn't a problem, because your thesis that a small amount of rotation about the long axis of the chisel compromises registration is incorrect. The effective width of a chisel rotated by 'angle' is blade_width*cos(angle), so 1 deg of rotation due to front-to-back taper would result in a reduction of 100*(1 - cos(1)) = 0.015%. In other words, a 1/2" mortise chisel would "lose" 0.00007" of registration due to that much rotation. At 2 deg the same chisel would "lose" 0.0003" (cos(small_angle) is very nonlinear). You're hung up on an irrelevancy in regards to the impacts of both front-to-back taper and shallow primary bevel. Any competent woodworker can keep a chisel straight to within a couple degrees, and that's sufficient in this specific case/orientation.

What DOES cause notable loss of registration is tip-to-bolster (lengthwise) taper. The Narex mortise chisels and apparently some 18th/19th C ones have such taper, the RI and Veritas (from what I understand) do not. For example the 1/2" Narex chisel loses 12 mils of width per inch of length, and at least for me that was enough to force me to focus on keeping the shaft centered in the mortise when cutting the bottom, or else the mortise would "wander" to one side or the other. I much prefer constant-width mortise chisels.

[lowell holmes]

Talk about splitting hairs :), how deep of a mortise are you chopping. A 3/4" TO 2" deep mortise will not see the taper you are talking about. I checked my Narex mortise chisels and they do taper as you said. I have some LN mortise chisels. IMO, they are more of a sash chisel. Can you measure 0.00007". I can't and don't care to.

I like the LN mortise chisels when drilling the mortise and then clearing the mortise sides with the chisel, ala Becksvoort.
I favor my Ray Iles mortise chisels for most work. Also, I may very well might use a bevel edge chisel if it suits my need.

[Warren Mickley]

Patrick, I must have misunderstood your previous post. You wrote: "The sides do provide some jigging in rotation, but you shouldn't need that anyway as you should be able to guide the chisel to within less than the taper angle by eye and handle feel."

Now you talk as if modern chisels have a very tight registration and can hardly twist in the cut. One factor you seem to have not noticed is that twist can (and does) occur beyond the sidewalls of the mortise by compression of the sidewalls.

I do not like the LN mortising chisels.

It doesn't sound like you have much feel for 18th century mortise chisels.

[Joel Moskowitz]

I think Derek has it spot on.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. The trick is getting the cat to stay still and getting the appropriate tools for the way you plan to go about it.

The method I was taught (the same method Moxon describes) doesn't involve getting particularly clean sides as the sides are pared to the scribe lines after the basic chopping is done. The point of the mortise chisel is pure speed.

The main reason mortise chisel handles fail is the grain of the handle runs out oddly. This happens. Using a metal hammer or other crap is what I would call abuse and it doesn't figure here.

The reason the ferrule replaced the wide bolster is that fitting a chisel to a ferruled handle is dead easy and reliable. No ferrule requires more time/cost/skill in the forging and the fitting

Larry's chisels are very nice but I would not call them 18 century English. The handle style along isn't really English - more German. But big deal Larry likes them. I would guess they feel great in the hand and work great so so what.

[Steve Voigt]

I think Derek has it spot on.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. The trick is getting the cat to stay still and getting the appropriate tools for the way you plan to go about it.

The method I was taught (the same method Moxon describes) doesn't involve getting particularly clean sides as the sides are pared to the scribe lines after the basic chopping is done. The point of the mortise chisel is pure speed.

The main reason mortise chisel handles fail is the grain of the handle runs out oddly. This happens. Using a metal hammer or other crap is what I would call abuse and it doesn't figure here.

The reason the ferrule replaced the wide bolster is that fitting a chisel to a ferruled handle is dead easy and reliable. No ferrule requires more time/cost/skill in the forging and the fitting

Larry's chisels are very nice but I would not call them 18 century English. The handle style along isn't really English - more German. But big deal Larry likes them. I would guess they feel great in the hand and work great so so what.


Joel,

You've blown my mind with your reason for why the ferrule became so ubiquitous. So this thing that is taken for granted, to the extent that people are giving my the stink eye in this thread for suggesting it's unnecessary, is only there to make the handle-fitter's job easier? Wow. That's useful information.

I agree that Larry's chisels aren't 18th c. English (particularly with the bevels), but there's an article floating around somewhere, by Don McConnell, that discusses the somewhat murky origins of this handle. Wait, here it is (http://www.planemaker.com/docs/octhandles.pdf). Anyway, like I said earlier, I prefer the simpler single-taper handles, but that's nitpicking.

I have to say, I don't follow you on mortising technique. If "pure speed" is the goal, why waste time paring? Not to mention that a bunch of mortises chopped with the same chisel (no paring) will be a lot more uniform in width than a bunch that have been pared. I'm glad it works for you, but I do think chopping only is preferable (though there are obviously situations, e.g. wide mortises, through mortises, where we have to pare).

[Joel Moskowitz]

Forging those nice wide bolsters is expensive. flush fitting a handle to a bolster is time consuming. Fitting a ferrule is dead easy and fast.

If you chop and pare to a scribe line (like Moxon describes) with a single stroke. It faster than trying to chop right to a line dead clean - especially with a through mortise.

Incidentally - do you know why bench chisels were sold in 1/8" increments. Mortise chisels were sold in 1/16" increments? The reason is that no matter if you are chopping to a specific width, or just scribing to whatever and then taking largest size mortise chisel that fits and then paring (at most one pass of 1/32" per side) everyone wants the flexibity to size their mortise and then chop it in one go. Bench chisels on the other hand are used for a larger variety of work, and multiple strokes are common. The only exception to that might be the base cut out for very narrow pins, where you would want to do it in one shot.

[steven c newman]

There are afew videos by GE HONG......watch them to see just HOW you are to do mortises...FAST. No messing around, he can through mortise a board in the time it took the type this post...

[Joel Moskowitz]

There are afew videos by GE HONG......watch them to see just HOW you are to do mortises...FAST. No messing around, he can through mortise a board in the time it took the type this post...

Can you send me a link - I googled them and didn't see anything (I might also be missing the obvious)

[Trevor Goodwin]

Steven you've provided no indication of how to find said videos. They don't come up on Google or Youtube. Are they on your hard drive perhaps

[Warren Mickley]

I think Derek has it spot on.

The method I was taught (the same method Moxon describes) doesn't involve getting particularly clean sides as the sides are pared to the scribe lines after the basic chopping is done. The point of the mortise chisel is pure speed.


So how long does it take to make a mortise 5/16 wide 1 1/2 inches long and 1 1/2 inches deep in oak, and then pare the scribe lines to finish the mortise?

[steven c newman]

Last time I went to watch one ON Youtube, all I typed in was GE HONG videos. Wasn't all that hard to do. It is hard to listen to, as they are in Chinese ( Mandarin). Might ask Mister Holcomb IF he can also find them. I did make a plane one time, following along with his videos...
343041
What he called an Edge plane. Those are the shavings it made, doing that little rebate.
343042
Not sure IF I can post a link...will look it up, when I feel bored...



Might try one of these? https:// www.youtube.com/watch? v=ctBgtmZGaU
Or.....http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1bo6NVYCc0

It is also achived here at Saw Mill Creek....back in 2014.

[Joel Moskowitz]

That's what I did - nothing obvious came up.

Peter chops them differently than I do - although he is using a Ray Iles mortise chisel which I had significant input into its development - so as far as I am concerned he's doing it perfectly with no room for improvement.

Warren's question is a good one. Sadly, unlike Warren I don't have the opportunity to spend time building and building. For me tools are a profession, using the tools is a hobby. So Warren on a bad day is probably much faster than I am. The last time I timed myself on something like that IIFC it was about two minutes. And I remember I thought it slow. I am going back to work after vacation on Monday and if I can I will try to get some recent numbers.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-content/uploads/MORTISE_BY_HAND.pdf

Check this article . It's the best I've seen. You don't need to be destructive when chopping mortises.

First let’s look at D2’s

demerit: It’s no fun to sharpen. Setting up these
tools took longer than I expected because of the
D2’s stout personality. The backs (sometimes
called the “faces”) of the chisels were ground
at the factory quite well. But even though they
were close to perfect from the factory, taking
them that last step took a little longer. Sharpening
up the secondary bevel also took longer than
usual because of the D2’s pigheadedness.

[steven c newman]

I went right to it...as archived here. That video were part of a 4-6 page thread on that type of woodworking. And, to watch that fellow chop.......the swing has already started BEFORE the chisel is in place. And, IIRC, your 2 minutes would be two mortises all the way through for him.

[Derek Cohen]

The videos are difficult to find under GE Hong. I watch his stuff a lot - great admirer - so I know whom to look for. Here is a link to a mortice and tenon demo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNzz2dGp6RA&list=PL6yG0ZTQ9Z7bGcp73KnPk-KC17uH1fG1L&index=2

This is the second of three videos, and he takes a long time to get to the chopping stage as he is in real time and preparing the timber first. Go to the 16 minute mark if you want to go directly to chopping.

His demo is very different to that of Peter Follansbee, who has the advantage of chopping against a glass wall. That adds an artificial aid in keeping the chisel aligned. Ge Hong approaches this differently ..

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Steve Voigt]

Derek, did you mean to link to this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgHynGqzd0&list=PL6yG0ZTQ9Z7bGcp73KnPk-KC17uH1fG1L&index=4

[Derek Cohen]

Yes Steve! My apology for pasting the wrong one (I copied another one on morticing earlier, but it did not demonstrate anything. I searched further, found the one you have now linked to, and then thought I was linking to it). The chopping begins around 16 minutes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Steve Voigt]

No worries, Derek, just trying to help out…

[Reinis Kanders]

Those videos are great. Something to aspire for. His chisel seems to have around 30 Deg angle. I like his tip about returning hammer handle to a resting position.

[Patrick Chase]

Those videos are great. Something to aspire for. His chisel seems to have around 30 Deg angle. I like his tip about returning hammer handle to a resting position.

I use more or less the same "center-out" approach he does, though MUCH more slowly and cautiously. It takes a lot of well-trained muscle-memory to mark out freehand, cut as quickly has he does, and still get decent results.

[Sean Nagle]

Excellent, in-depth discussion!

Unfortunately , I'm still unsure whether to go ahead with the Lee Valley/Veritas mortise chisels, the Ray Iles chisels or even the Narex chisels. It's great that Derrick was able to offer up some impressions of the Lee Valley pre-production versions. I am leaning toward the Lee Valley chisels, especially since they are less expensive than the RI's and there's always one or two Ray Iles chisel sizes that are unavailable from TFWW every time I look.

[Pat Barry]

Excellent, in-depth discussion!

Unfortunately , I'm still unsure whether to go ahead with the Lee Valley/Veritas mortise chisels, the Ray Iles chisels or even the Narex chisels. It's great that Derrick was able to offer up some impressions of the Lee Valley pre-production versions. I am leaning toward the Lee Valley chisels, especially since they are less expensive than the RI's and there's always one or two Ray Iles chisel sizes that are unavailable from TFWW every time I look.
Do you make lots of mortises? Are they a variety of sizes? You get a set of Narex for the price of one Veritas. If it were me and I was going to get one chisel I would go with the Veritas. If on the other hand, like me, you are a hobbyist, I think the Narex fills the bill for mortise chisel very well just because of the price. Nte: I recently bought a set of the Narex bench chisels and find, for me, they are everything I need. In fact, I consider them a big step up from the mismatched chisels I have, including 3 piece older plastic handled Stanley set I have had forever, that I have been very happy. I am tempted to refine the handles a bit like Stewie did though.

[Sean Nagle]

Do you make lots of mortises?

It is rare that I chop mortises from scratch, but I have on occasion. I usually hog out most of the material with a Fostner bit in a drill press and then clean them up afterwards with my bench chisels. However, I always felt I was abusing my bench chisels doing this and was under the impression that I needed a more robust chisel, thus a mortising chisel.

[Jim Koepke]

It is rare that I chop mortises from scratch, but I have on occasion. I usually hog out most of the material with a Fostner bit in a drill press and then clean them up afterwards with my bench chisels. However, I always felt I was abusing my bench chisels doing this and was under the impression that I needed a more robust chisel, thus a mortising chisel.

A good set of mortise chisels might encourage you to chop them more from scratch or it may be money spent with little return on investment.

If my finances were in a position to purchase a set of mortise chisels, my choice would likely be the Veritas.

With my current limited finances, my choice might be the Narex.

In the long run the Veritas will likely retain more of their original cost at resale if that is of concern.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

It is rare that I chop mortises from scratch, but I have on occasion. I usually hog out most of the material with a Fostner bit in a drill press and then clean them up afterwards with my bench chisels. However, I always felt I was abusing my bench chisels doing this and was under the impression that I needed a more robust chisel, thus a mortising chisel.
My opinion, just that, if you are drilling to remove the bulk if the waste, then a bench chisel is the ticket for removing the rest. I think a mortise chisel might actually perform worse in that situation. I'd be curious though, what others experience is.

[Jim Koepke]

My opinion, just that, if you are drilling to remove the bulk if the waste, then a bench chisel is the ticket for removing the rest. I think a mortise chisel might actually perform worse in that situation. I'd be curious though, what others experience is.

In my experience the only use for a mortise chisel in this situation is to clean up the ends of the mortise.

jtk

[Reinis Kanders]

Excellent, in-depth discussion!

Unfortunately , I'm still unsure whether to go ahead with the Lee Valley/Veritas mortise chisels, the Ray Iles chisels or even the Narex chisels. It's great that Derrick was able to offer up some impressions of the Lee Valley pre-production versions. I am leaning toward the Lee Valley chisels, especially since they are less expensive than the RI's and there's always one or two Ray Iles chisel sizes that are unavailable from TFWW every time I look.

At the moment I like a feel of japanese mortise chisels for regular size mortises. Their handles feel right if a bit dainty because I have a 4" wide palm. Ray Isles are more weapon like, definitely good for some self defense:) Narex have the same feel. You can get used Japanese ones from eBay for decent prices if you feel like experimenting.

[Patrick Chase]

Do you make lots of mortises? Are they a variety of sizes? You get a set of Narex for the price of one Veritas. If it were me and I was going to get one chisel I would go with the Veritas. If on the other hand, like me, you are a hobbyist, I think the Narex fills the bill for mortise chisel very well just because of the price. Nte: I recently bought a set of the Narex bench chisels and find, for me, they are everything I need. In fact, I consider them a big step up from the mismatched chisels I have, including 3 piece older plastic handled Stanley set I have had forever, that I have been very happy. I am tempted to refine the handles a bit like Stewie did though.

Now that I've used the RIs for a while I find the Narex chisels a bit difficult to go back to. As I said in an earlier post, I've come to dislike lengthwise (tip-to-bolster) taper, and the Narex mortise chisels taper by about 12 mils per inch.

[Patrick Chase]

My opinion, just that, if you are drilling to remove the bulk if the waste, then a bench chisel is the ticket for removing the rest. I think a mortise chisel might actually perform worse in that situation. I'd be curious though, what others experience is.

+1 to this. Cleaning up after hogging with a drill is basically a paring operation, not mortising. IMO it's best done with bench chisels.

[Jim Koepke]

It is rare that I chop mortises from scratch, but I have on occasion. I usually hog out most of the material with a Fostner bit in a drill press and then clean them up afterwards with my bench chisels. However, I always felt I was abusing my bench chisels doing this and was under the impression that I needed a more robust chisel, thus a mortising chisel.


You can get used Japanese ones from eBay for decent prices if you feel like experimenting.

My urge to mention the possibility of buying used has so far had me bitting my tongue. My only problem with buying used is some of the Narex mortise chisels are less expensive than what mine cost used. It also took a long time before two old mortise chisels were listed that didn't attract other bidders to challenge my frugal bid.

The Narex mortise chisels were not available when mine were purchased.

With Sean mentioning he hogs out with a Fostner bit, something to consider would be to purchase only one size that is used the most.

Whether to hog and cut or just pound and cut still has me on the fence. With the hog and cut method it is easy to use a few bench chisels to pare the sides and chop the ends. Making the mortise just a bit longer than the paring chisel to be used works for me. Just one of the reasons for having chisels int the 1 to 2 inch range. Of course it can be done with a narrower chisel. It just takes longer. It also is helps to have a chisel matching the width. This is where the mortise chisel would make quick work cutting the ends.

Time wise it seems a bunch of mortises can be banged out faster than the drill press can be set up, the pieces drilled and then cleaned up. Which then brings us back to why one needs a set.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

My urge to mention the possibility of buying used has so far had me bitting my tongue. My only problem with buying used is some of the Narex mortise chisels are less expensive than what mine cost used. It also took a long time before two old mortise chisels were listed that didn't attract other bidders to challenge my frugal bid.


I bought the two that I have used from a dealer. I used to buy a fair amount on eBay, but the prices have gotten so ridiculous, you can often now find a tool you want from a dealer and pay less than what they go for on eBay. That is what happened with my Sorby mortise chisels.