Narex Chisels - Comments on use

[Mike Henderson]

I've read many good comments here on SawMill Creek about the Narex chisels so when Gabor Siklos offered a set of 6 for $55 I decided to try them. I received them a few days ago and have used them making dovetails for the past two days.

Gabor had flattened the backs of the chisels so I was unable to evaluate that aspect of them - but I didn't mind missing that task.:) Thank you, Gabor.

I put the chisels through my standard sharpening routine, which is to grind a 25 degree primary bevel on them with a diamond plate on my WorkSharp, and then to put a secondary bevel at a higher angle on a Shapton 8000 stone. This is the same technique I use for all my chisels, including Japanese chisels.

My normal chisels for dovetails are my LV PM-V11 chisels but I certainly did not expect the Narex to perform like the LV chisels. However, I found that the Narex dulled fairly quickly. I was cutting pine cross grain and pine requires a sharp chisel to cut it cleanly. Once the edge rolls, the wood is not cut cleanly but appears to be pushed apart. Hard to describe adequately but I can quickly tell when the chisel is not cutting cleanly.

The Narex chisels took a keen edge and cut well just off the stone but the cut got progressively worse the more I chopped with it.

To help evaluate my expectations, I then got some of my antique Swan chisels, marked "Best Cast Steel," and used them to compare directly against the Narex. (I had already done a comparison between the Swan and the LV PM-V11 chisels and the Swan dulled much faster than the LV chisels). I chopped a set of dovetails with the Swan, then a set with the Narex, then a set with the Swan.

To my subjective evaluation, the edge on the Swan chisels lasted longer than the edge on the Narex chisels.

This only evaluates one aspect of the Narex chisels, using them for chopping dovetails in pine cross grain, but that's what I wanted them for. It's also possible that I just happened to get a set of Narex chisels that were somewhat soft. But this is what I experienced with the Narex chisels that I have.

Mike

[Patrick Chase]

Narex uses a low-alloy steel. While it's not water-hardening HCS as in the Swans it's close, and in my experience it's in the same class as good quality HCS in terms of both edge taking (extremely good) and edge holding (ok). It's not a high-carbide super-steel like PM-V11, but it's also a lot faster to sharpen than any super-steel.

One thing to be aware of is that like many pre-machined chisels the wear performance of the Narex tools improves a bit after the first several sharpenings, as you work past the surface layer of steel. Your PM-V11 chisels wouldn't have had that behavior both because of how their HT process works and because LV post-machines the surface steel off after HT.

I suspect that if you look at "percentage downtime for sharpening" once the chisels have been fully broken in you'll find that they're very competitive. They'll still wear quite a bit faster than the LVs, but you'll also be able to bring them back into service with a couple quick honing strokes.

BTW the "super power" of those chisels is that they are extremely tough due to the use of austempering instead of conventional HT. If you ever have an application where shock is a concern, they'll handle it with ease.

[Mike Henderson]

One thing to be aware of is that like many pre-machined chisels the wear performance of the Narex tools improves a bit after the first several sharpenings, as you work past the surface layer of steel. Your PM-V11 chisels wouldn't have had that behavior both because of how their HT process works and because LV post-machines the surface steel off after HT.



Any estimate of the amount that should be taken off the chisel to get to good steel? I can just grind the edge back that much and try it again.

Mike

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks for the post Mike. I'd appreciate hearing how they compare after you grind them back a bit.
Fred

[Patrick Chase]

Any estimate of the amount that should be taken off the chisel to get to good steel? I can just grind the edge back that much and try it again.

Mike

A millimeter (40 mils) at the very most, probably quite a bit less. I'd just use them for a while and see if they improve (that's what I did with mine).

[John C Cox]

I would go at the backs rather than the bevel.

Most likely they have a decarburized layer from heat treatment that was not ground off - because they don't grind after heat treatment.

And most likely - the decarbed layer has been removed from the bulk of the bevel - the only remaining part is the back... Which forms the sharp part of the bevel. ;)

So dig out your surface plate and rolls of 100, 180, and 325 grit PSA sandpaper and go to battle. Take off at least 1/64". 1/32" would be better - but yes - I do understand it's a bear for that much steel. You know it's time to replace the paper as soon as the cut slows down - and it does take a bunch... Once you get past 325 - switch back to your stones as per usual back flattening procedure.

Then circle back around, resharpen the bevels and off you go....

I have done this to 2 sets of chisels now in the last few days - and the difference is night and day. It's like a completely different chisel...

[Bruce Haugen]

Patrick,
Which contemporary chisels are austempered, and what steels benefit from that process? Or do all steels so benefit?

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick,
Which contemporary chisels are austempered, and what steels benefit from that process? Or do all steels so benefit?

The only current maker who says they do it is Narex. The description of Berg's old process is consistent with austempering (and it was known back then) so they may have as well.

One "tell" is that austempered tools don't etch very well, so the vendor's information is often printed on the blade instead as is true for Narex. One other current maker that prints instead of etching is Bahco, so I suspect that their chisels are also austempered, possibly at the Narex factory (that last part is a guess based on some other design features).

Austempering is an interrupted quench in a salt bath, the temperature of which is slightly higher than the Martensite transition temperature of the alloy. If you do the same thing but at a temperature slighty lower than the Martensite transition temperature then it's called "martempering" BTW. By holding the steel at that temperature you cause it to convert to Lower Bainite instead of Martensite, which provides vastly higher toughness though at the cost of limiting hardness. Narex' Rc59 is about as high as you can go with austempering AFAIK.

With that in mind, there are some requirements for the steel:

1. It has to have slow enough kinetics that a molten salt bath can harden it. In other words, the steel can't convert to something else (like Pearlite) within the time it takes the salt bath to bring it down to the converstion temperature for Bainite. That rules out many water-hardening steels, such as plain HCS (10xx etc) and W1/T10, since they won't harden at all in a salt bath for any but the very thinnest parts.

2. It has to have fast enough kinetics that it will convert to Bainite in a reasonable amount of time. You probably wouldn't want to try to austemper an air-hardening alloy like A2, because my reading of the I-T diagram is that it would take 3 hours in the salt bath to even start converting, so that's not likely to be an economical use of production tooling.

The bottom line is that it mostly seems to be done with oil-hardening steels (a lot of hobbyists do it with O1) and with steels that are created for the purpose and that are somewhere between water- and oil-hardened in terms of speed. Narex appears to use one of the latter, per John's observation that it's too fast for oil hardening.

[Bruce Haugen]

Thanks much for the detailed explanation, Patrick. I sure do like my Bergs, and this could be one reason why.

[John C Cox]

The point wasn't specifically about austempering or alloys and whatnot - but rather so you understand that they do not do ANY grinding AFTER hardening...

That means there will be a decarbed layer left behind.....

Decarbed steel is mush compared with the non-decarbed steel.. And doesn't hold an edge worth a lick....

And you must grind that decarbed layer off the back if you want to get anything useful out of the chisel..

As to which companies are doing this now.... From the new production chisels I have received - all of them except Lie Nielsen and Veritas/LV. Perhaps Pfeil... Probably it's not a problem for them because they are grinding the decarbed layer off during production...

But my new Two Cherries got a lot better after I really ground the backs hard. And my suspicion is that when you hear "Soft gummy German steel" in the same sentence as Two Cherries - it's a decarb problem that will be solved by an aggressive go at the back on the surface plate.

The Aldi chisels improved significantly - I kept wondering how in the world those YouTubers were able to get so much work out of them.... Grind 1/64" to 1/32" off the back and they are a different tool....

[Patrick Chase]

That means there will be a decarbed layer left behind.....

I think that "will" is strong here. Decarb happens because of reactivity with oxygen in the environment. If the heat treatment is done entirely in an inert environment, as in a vacuum furnace or inert-gas furnace, then decarb doesn't happen. Likewise there are passivating coatings that can be used to form a barrier between the carbon in the steel and the environment. Borax is the traditional solution though there are newer and arguably better options.

Decarb is a serious issue for the "Joe Bob the MAP-torch-wielding driveway heat-treater", but shouldn't be as much of a problem for the pros. Given Narex' overall level of sophistication I would be shocked if they aren't taking measures to inert the environment and passivate the tool surface. It may be that the salt bath complicates things in some way, though, or it may be that they have a completely different surface effect in play. That's why I ignored your previous post - it assumes that they aren't taking obvious precautions, and presumes knowledge of their process that neither you nor I have.


The Aldi chisels improved significantly - I kept wondering how in the world those YouTubers were able to get so much work out of them.... Grind 1/64" to 1/32" off the back and they are a different tool....

At typical austenitization times and temperatures decarb extends O(10-20 mils) below the surface of the part. That's all you really need to remove.

[Mark Gibney]

I have a 1 5/8" Narex chisel I used last week to chop out ipe from the mouth of several planes I resoled.

It held up pretty well, better than the other chisels I was using - several older swap-meet Stanleys or just "made in USA" socket chisels, and a 1" blue handled Marples.

I've yet to get my hands on a Veritas PMV-11 chisel. They sound wonderful.

[Mike Henderson]

I would go at the backs rather than the bevel.

Most likely they have a decarburized layer from heat treatment that was not ground off - because they don't grind after heat treatment.

And most likely - the decarbed layer has been removed from the bulk of the bevel - the only remaining part is the back... Which forms the sharp part of the bevel. ;)

So dig out your surface plate and rolls of 100, 180, and 325 grit PSA sandpaper and go to battle. Take off at least 1/64". 1/32" would be better - but yes - I do understand it's a bear for that much steel. You know it's time to replace the paper as soon as the cut slows down - and it does take a bunch... Once you get past 325 - switch back to your stones as per usual back flattening procedure.

Then circle back around, resharpen the bevels and off you go....

I have done this to 2 sets of chisels now in the last few days - and the difference is night and day. It's like a completely different chisel...

There's absolutely no way I'm going to grind the backs of 6 chisels down as much as 1/32". While the 6mm might not be too bad, the 26mm would take forever. I'd rather pay for chisels that don't have that problem.

It's hard for me to believe that Narex is putting out chisels with that much decarbed steel at the back. The edges would be mush and people just wouldn't put up with that.

As far as polishing the backs, Gabor did that and did a good job on it.

But just as an experiment, I'd put a back microbevel on one of the chisels, sufficient to get through 1/32", and see how they do.

Mike

[Patrick Chase]

But just as an experiment, I'd put a back microbevel on one of the chisels, sufficient to get through 1/32", and see how they do.


Don't. I've never worked the backs of mine beyond what is needed to flatten them, and they hold up fine. Many, many other people have had similar experiences.

There are at least three reasons why you shouldn't need to do that:


Decarb almost never extends that deep. The curves in my old metallurgy text suggest more like 1/100" for reasonable austenitization time/temperature (I just looked).
If your chisel were seriously decarbed it wouldn't be even close to the Swan. It would be a complete disaster, like what happens if you burn a tool all the way to light gray/green. The fact that you describe a small difference between the two more or less rules out decarb.
A manufacturer as sophisticated as Narex wouldn't have decarb problems to begin with, for reasons given in my other post. There are other issues besides decarb that can make the tip of a chisel less durable than the rest (thermal issues leading to grain structure changes for example) and I suspect it's something along those lines.

[John C Cox]

Here would be my strategy....

Pick the one in the pack you consider "worst".

Pitch it into the deep freezer over night. See if that makes any difference.

Give the bevel a good go. Grind off 1/16" and see if that improves things significantly.

Give the back a good go. Try to get at least 0.010" off the tip end without ruining the rest of the chisel geometry. See if that helps.

If no to all - sell the set and move on... You may have found out why the previous owner sold them...

If at least one of these previous items sufficiently improves things - decide if it's worth it for the rest of the set... If not - sell the set and move on...

[Robert Engel]

I've been using Narex "premium" chisels for about 5 years. Edge retention is definitely an issue. Upside is you sure learn how to sharpen quickly ;-).

FWIW, I purchased a Stanley 750 to try out and IMO edge retention was worse then the Narex. The side bevel heights are higher, too.

I keep a little surgical black Arkansas stone right on the bench.

I believe Patrick is correct re: they do seem to get a little better the more you sharpen.

Patrick, would re-tempering have any effect, or is it just the steel?

[John C Cox]

Edge retention is a tricky subject... It doesn't correlate particularly well to measured hardness...... It seems to depend most on the carbon content and the alloy.... If your chisels are simply dulling - it's probably the steel.... for example... Current Marples chisels run around 1%C, Pfeil runs about 1.2%C and Japanese white steel chisels can run up to 1.5%C... And I would put their edge retention in that order (assuming no rolling or chipping)...

Unless you can cryo treat - it's unlikely you will make them any harder by tempering them.

I have re-hardened Narex chisels. Heat the last 1" to nonmagnetic and quench in brine. Then temper starting around 350F and testing on wood.. If it's way too brittle/chippy - re-temper 25 degrees higher at a time until the edge holds up better.... I liked mine tempered just enough so it doesn't chip/crack all over the place... I ended up happy with a very hard chisel with a 400-425F temper... I am not using hammers with these....

Be prepared for it to warp. That's why you don't re-harden more than 1" or so...

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, would re-tempering have any effect, or is it just the steel?

As I said above, it's a low-alloy steel that behaves very similarly to HCS, so while it's very easy to sharpen it needs to be sharpened fairly often. The Stanley 750s should be in the same ballpark.

You can only make steel softer by re-tempering, never harder. You can re-heat-treat, but I wouldn't recommend that.

[ken hatch]

Interesting thread that begs the question Why?

Unless you just enjoy mucking around with metal why not buy a good chisel first and put metal to wood. I know what blows your skirt is different for everyone and YMMV.

Anyway there are some really good blacksmiths working in Japan and even a few in the UK looking for a little love.

ken

P.S. This thread reminds me of when I first started flying, training was almost about taking sand and turning it into the aircraft. As the years passed training got real and now we train "need to know" aka can you do anything about it from either of the front seats. Each is valid but I expect in working wood the need to know guys will get a lot more furniture built.

[Mike Henderson]

Interesting thread that begs the question Why?

Unless you just enjoy mucking around with metal why not buy a good chisel first and put metal to wood. I know what blows your skirt is different for everyone and YMMV.

Anyway there are some really good blacksmiths working in Japan and even a few in the UK looking for a little love.

ken

I have chisels with excellent edge retention. I purchased the Narex because people have posted positive comments about them and I was interested to learn how good (or not) they are. I teach and people ask me for recommendations. I'd like to be able to make informed comments about the different chisels out there. For example, I may be able to say that the Narex are decent chisels but the edge does not hold up as well as some more expensive chisels - and you should expect to have to touch up the edge after chopping out two (for example) pins in a dovetail. I can only make those comments if I have some experience with the product.

Beginning woodworkers often do not have the money to purchase the more expensive tools, or don't know if they are going to continue and wish to purchase less expensive tools.

I have Japanese chisels and they are good chisels with good edge retention. Some Japanese chisels are very expensive - even more than the LV PM-V11 chisels - and I don't like the handles on Japanese chisels. I've rehandled mine to western handles. I just want the hard edge on Japanese chisels and to be able to use them like the rest of my western chisels.

Mike

[You can occasionally find antique laminated western chisels but the reason for laminating chisels in the west is different than Japanese chisels. Good steel was expensive in the west and makers laminated good steel to cheaper steel in both chisels and plane irons. But they didn't harden the good steel to the level that the carbon steel is hardened in Japanese tools. A good example of this is the laminated irons in older Stanley bench planes.]

[John C Cox]

Interesting thread that begs the question Why?

Unless you just enjoy mucking around with metal why not buy a good chisel first and put metal to wood. I know what blows your skirt is different for everyone and YMMV.

Anyway there are some really good blacksmiths working in Japan and even a few in the UK looking for a little love.

ken

P.S. This thread reminds me of when I first started flying, training was almost about taking sand and turning it into the aircraft. As the years passed training got real and now we train "need to know" aka can you do anything about it from either of the front seats. Each is valid but I expect in working wood the need to know guys will get a lot more furniture built.

Ken - I can't answer for anybody else... For me - I have to pin down "Is it me or the tool..."

So... I have to answer these questions...
What does it do?
What is it actually supposed to do in real life?
Can I do anything about it?
Does it make sense for me to do it?

So... For example.. My "discovery" that the steel on the back may end up being a bit worse than the inside....
My guess is that this is a known thing with the makers - but it is assumed that the end user will grind off this softer steel in the normal, expected chisel prep...

And the old "Tradition" of lapping chisel backs completely flat would make the problem go away... And you would never even know this was a potential problem if you just lapped them all the way (or at least mostly) flat just because....

I was trying to "cheat" and prep the backs of these cheaper chisels more like a Japanese chisel... I stopped as soon as I had 1/8" of flat all the way across the bevel... Apparently that's not enough - aggressively flattening the back has significant merit beyond simply the geometry of the edge... They perform way better when you do... And so that's what I am going to do from now on.....

Yet again - they already worked out this problem long ago... It's already built into the tradition of western chisel prep...

Thanks

[William Fretwell]

I spent the best part of two days lapping the backs of my large Narex chisel set, because they were not flat, not to be traditional. Clearly I am traditional! Not only was I traditionally trying to save money, I traditionally paid the price for doing so.
Narex chisels have a characteristic rust in the 'grain' of the steel, some sizes more noticeable than others, no other chisels I have do this.
Their performance is rather good. My old blue handled steel Marples were soft like tin can.
I could have spent ten times as much but then that wouldn't have been at all traditional!

[Stewie Simpson]

William; you may find the following article an interesting read. https://logancabinetshoppe.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/chisel-backs-stop-lapping/

regards Stewe;

[William Fretwell]

William; you may find the following article an interesting read. https://logancabinetshoppe.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/chisel-backs-stop-lapping/

regards Stewe;
Thanks Stewie, not really a fan of the ruler trick for plane blades as once it's flat it's done, except the blade makes it's own small back bevel in use. Don't really get wood hard enough to need a back bevel in Canada, I know Derek uses one.

His direction of travel reasoning is somewhat true but the final paring of a mortice side would require balancing on the back bevel.
My last set of English chisels came flat and had the whole set good to go in 20 minutes!
I might try it on an old chisel some time.

I think craftsmen of yesteryear were far less fussy with flat and had fewer flat stones, no flat diamond plates to fuel the obsession, and were far more skilled than todays part timers.

[Derek Cohen]

mmmm ... William. I am not one to use the Ruler Trick on chisels. Nor on BD blades. In the past on BU blades with O1 steel. I prefer to keep the backs flat.

I have nothing against the RT. I think that it is excellent for beginners on BD plane blades, and if you are concerned with the possible incursion of a wear bevel on BU planes blades (I stopped being concerned about that).

My opinion about chisels is that the area immediately behind the bevel must be flat and polished as per the bevel. How else will you optimally sharpen the blade?

Chisels need coplanar backs, not lapped backs, per se.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ken hatch]

William; you may find the following article an interesting read. https://logancabinetshoppe.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/chisel-backs-stop-lapping/

regards Stewe;

Stewie,

Interesting post. I know Ashley Iles grinds their chisels post HT and inspection for belly. Richard Maguire has mentioned on at least one occasion that his Dad always "back bevels" his chisels, he said it as an aside and implied he disapproved but what could he do, it was his classically trained Dad. Also back in the day there were no diamond hones, plate or otherwise, all they had were natural stones that were not flat and as pointed out cutters were a way to make a living not something to post on the internet about.

ken

[John C Cox]

I spent the best part of two days lapping the backs of my large Narex chisel set, because they were not flat, not to be traditional. Clearly I am traditional! Not only was I traditionally trying to save money, I traditionally paid the price for doing so.
Narex chisels have a characteristic rust in the 'grain' of the steel, some sizes more noticeable than others, no other chisels I have do this.
Their performance is rather good. My old blue handled steel Marples were soft like tin can.
I could have spent ten times as much but then that wouldn't have been at all traditional!

William, I feel for you buddy.

The thing is - don't assume that moving up market a bit will fix this.... My current experience is that it won't until you spend a LOT of money... Reports are that LN, LV, and hand forged Japanese chisels don't have this problem - so that puts you up into the $80+/chisel range... I am going to buy another roll of 100 grit PSA...

I got a brand new set of Two Cherries last week... They cost almost double Narex.... And their backs were nowhere near flat... Their steel is fantastic once they are prepped, though.

Even chisels in the $40/each range saw cutting performance on wood improve after going at the back.....

The old timers got it right on flattening backs. It makes a difference. I wish it didn't matter because it's a lot more work for me...

[Mike Henderson]

The old timers got it right on flattening backs. It makes a difference. I wish it didn't matter because it's a lot more work for me...

I've bought a fair number of antique chisels and early Stanley planes (around type 11). I've never received one with a flat back except one plane I purchased from a contemporary woodworker who did flatten the back of the plane iron. Now, maybe it just happened that I never received a tool that had been used by a "real" woodworker, but based on the sample I have, our ancestors did not do a lot of flattening of the backs of chisels and plane blades.

How many of you who purchased an old chisel or antique Stanley plane, in "as found" condition, discovered that the back was flat?

Mike

[John C Cox]

I bought antique chisels and early Stanley planes (around type 11). I've never received one with a flat back except one plane I purchased from a contemporary woodworker who did flatten the back of the plane iron. Now, maybe it just happened that I never received a tool that had been used by a "real" woodworker, but based on the sample I have, people did not do a lot of flattening of the backs of chisels and plane blades.

Mike

Lol! We must shop at the same places for old tools.... The vast majority of old planes and chisels I have picked up have never even been sharpened.... They just went to hammering on them till they stopped cutting and got another one.... And if they were sharpened - it was on a bench grinder or power sander...

But people tell me that the tradition was to flatten them... ;)

I have seen 1 old Witherby chisel that had a very flat and well prepped back. It was in the hands of an old Luthier who "inherited" it when his master retired.. And he told me that his master inherited it from his master when he retired.... And so somebody in that chain had flattened the back...

All the apprentices and journeymen luthiers in his shop had chisels with well prepped and flattened backs...

[Bill McNiel]

Mike,
After reading numerous positive reviews here on the Creek, I purchased a Narex paring chisel a few months ago. The amount of time and energy required to flatten the back was way beyond my tolerance level. I was so put off that I have sentenced it to tool purgatory after using it a couple of times so I can't really comment on its edge retention.

Full disclosure- I like to make stuff using tools, I'm not particularly partial to working on tools. I am partial to PMV11, it sharpens quickly and holds its edge.

[Bob Leistner]

I own all old tools. Not one tool had the back flattened when i received it. I have wondered about this for many years and came to the conclusion it is the "Magazine Indoctrination Syndrome". If one of the mags says it is so, it becomes Gospel. I have flattened the backs of most of my tools, but I do not consider it to be a must in order to do good work.

[Mike Baker 2]

I recently restored a Stanley 750 chisel whose back was dead flat. Someone had worked it before, however, that same someone had honed a concave into the bevel that was up and down the bevel face, not across the width of it. Go figer.
I buy mostly vintage tools, because I get more for my money. The only other tool I have bought that showed any signs of flattening was a blue jappaned #4, probably a Handyman series, though it is not marked as such anywhere. The sole was dead flat, the sides dead square, and the iron back flat for about an inch and a half. It performs every bit as good as my #5, although the feel in the hand is inferior.
In contrast, that SweetHeart #5 required extensive work, as did most of the other old tools I have.
When I start flattening chisel backs, it depends on the tool. That old 750, and some of the other vintage tools I own would get the full treatment, at least halfway up the back. My Aldi chisels? Hey, if I can get 1/8" up the back from the edge, that works for me.
Having said that, some of the discussion here has piqued my interest, and if I ever run across a problem with edge retention, I'll definitely give a go at aggressively flattening the back. Can't hurt(very much).

[John C Cox]

The only other tool I have bought that showed any signs of flattening was a blue jappaned #4, probably a Handyman series, though it is not marked as such anywhere. The sole was dead flat, the sides dead square, and the iron back flat for about an inch and a half. It performs every bit as good as my #5, although the feel in the hand is inferior.

Mike - Shhhh... Don't tell anybody here that those cheap blue painted Handyman planes from the 70's are any good...

Truth is - That's how they came from Stanley in the early 1970's.. The castings were great...

I got mine from Dad. I know for a fact he bought it new in some hardware store and hung it up on a hook... And it sat there some 35 or so years till I found it... It was never worked over and the iron was never even sharpened.... Still had the factory lacquer on the iron...

It's ugly as sin, the handle and tote are horrible, and the adjusters are sticky and awful.... but it's the most square and true Stanley Plane I own.. And it rivals LV/LN in regards to square and true..

[Mike Baker 2]

Yes, I don't care for the handles, they are very square and blocky. I could reshape them, but they work just fine. I reach for it more than my older #5; it's just the "right" size for most things I'm doing.

[Patrick Chase]

Also back in the day there were no diamond hones, plate or otherwise, all they had were natural stones that were not flat...

I agree with the general argument that period woodworkers were too busy actually making things to obsess about flatness to the degree we do.

I have to object to this repeated assertion that they didn't have the technology to produce a flat honing surface. The technique of using 3 stones to flatten each other has been known for literally centuries (a bit over two to be exact).

One potential "gotcha" here is that the vast majority of used tools have likely never seen the hand of a competent user. As I've said before, the condition of old tools doesn't mean anything unless you can somehow establish their provenance (as with John's Witherby a few posts back).

[David Bassett]

... all they had were natural stones that were not flat...

It's hard to know what was done and how often and in what way. I think there is evidence that stones were flattened in the past, though maybe not as much and probably not as easily. (E.g. no diamond plates.)

A specific example I know of is in "The Joiner and Cabinet Maker", by Anonymous, (as published by LAP with additions by Christopher Schwarz and Joel Moskowitz.) In the original text, "By use the rubstone grows hollow in the middle, and it is every man’s business to face it afresh when he has finished with it, so as to leave it always ready for use. This is done by rubbing it with another piece of stone which lies beside it, and there is also a straight edge of wood to try it by."

My note: this section on flattening rubstones, it is a small part of the sharpening descriptions given. It is specifically discussing "rub stones", what I today would call a coarse stone or a flat grinding stone, in this flattening section. There are also grinding stones, large wheels, discussed as alternatives to rub stones used in bigger shops, and hones for improving or finishing the edge after grinding.

BTW- In a footnote, Joel Moskowitz, (I think,) writes, "People have been sharpening things on grindstones and flat stones for millennia. It’s such a common operation in every trade that there is almost no mention of the practice of it anywhere. It was too obvious to waste space on in professional books. Joseph Moxon, who was writing for the amateur, does give a sort of description of grinding and honing in “Mechanick Exercises,” but in "The Joiner and Cabinet Maker" we have the first detailed look at early 19th-century English grinding practice."

[Mike Baker 2]

I'm an amateur/newbie, so I don't begin to present myself as any kind of authority, nor anyone with detailed knowledge, book or practical, and what I'm going to say is based on my own observations, in my very small part of the country, but...
I spend inordinate amounts of time looking for old tools and stones. The sheer number of old and heavily dished Black and Translucent Arkansas stones I have come across, many of which were among old tools that people wanted way too much money for, IMO, leads me to believe that while you might read in instructional books of the time about the use of flat stones, I bet a ton of the average wood workers used convex bevels, and just honed until they got a sharp edge. I bet a lot of those old guys didn't buy the books; they found what worked for them, and used it
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and I sincerely don't think there was a "one way" method back then, just like there really isn't "one way" now.
There are people that use convex bevels, back bevels, concave bevels, flat bevels, on and on today. I think the old fellas used whatever worked for them.
IMHO, of course.

[Mike Henderson]

In order to test some of the suggestions given here, I did some more work in the shop today. I started by grinding the chisel back a bit, probably a mm as suggested by Patrick. I then put a small back bevel on the chisel and proceeded to chop some pine. To my subjective eye, it appeared that the edge lasted longer.

Since I had changed two parameters I couldn't tell which one might have contributed to the longer life, so I took another Narex chisel and only did the grind back on the bevel. That one seemed to hold an edge longer than in my original test. These results are completely subjective - I have no way to objectively measure sharpness or how long an edge lasts - but subjectively, I'd say that the edge lasted longer. I did use a 10x loupe to examine the edges after chopping for a fixed number of "chops".

It was during my examination with the loupe that I noticed something unusual on the 16mm chisel. There is a defect in the steel.
379588

Here's a closeup of the defect
379587

The edge could be sharpened to a sharp, smooth edge but as soon as I used the chisel, the edge broke at the defect area.
379590

And here's a closeup of the edge after use, showing the "chip" in the edge.
379589

This is not what I was getting last time - last time I was getting a rolled edge - so this problem showed up because I ground the edge back a bit. I'll probably have to grind the edge back past the defect.

Anyway, it seems that grinding the edge back a bit improved how long the edge lasted. I'll keep using the chisels and see if my opinion changes when I'm doing real dovetails.

Mike

[Bob Leistner]

i know that I have seen you tubes of woodworkers in places such as China and India that use ancient methods to make various items. In videos where they actually show the person sharpening their tools, they always are using some horrible looking stone that is cupped beyond imagination. It works for them and the workmanship is always amazing.

[Mike Henderson]

I made some dovetails in cherry today and used the Narex chisels. The edges definitely held up better than they did originally.

Since that original work, I ground the bevels back a bit, but otherwise sharpened them the same way as before. When examined with a 10x loupe after use, I could see that the edge was not smooth, like it was off the stone, but it was not rolled like it did originally. Just a bit rough. That was after a fair number of dovetails.

For the price, about $9 each, I'd definitely give them a "thumbs up" (note that I bought them used,not new. New, they would cost a bit more).

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

I continue to work with the Narex chisels. One thing I noticed is that the size marked on the chisel is only nominal. They're not exact in either mm or inches. Here's what I measured on mine (I did the inches measurement in fractions and then converted to decimal so that was one more place for error):



Nominal size (mm)
Measured size (mm)
Measured size (inches)


6
6.2
0.25


10
10.35
0.40625


12
12.3
0.484375


16
16.05
0.6328125


20
20.1
0.796875


26
26
1.0234375



I did a small amount of rounding when I read the calipers (one mm, the other inches) so if you convert my measurements they'll be close but not exact.

The 6 (6.2) is pretty close to 1/4. The 10 (10.35) is close to 3/8 (about 1/32 wider). The 12 (12.3) is close to 1/2 (about 1/64 short). The 16 (16.05) is close to 5/8 (very close, maybe 1/128 wider). The 20 (20.1) is close to 3/4 (about 3/64 wider). And the 26 is close to 1" (about 3/128 wider).

This really isn't a problem because most people "fit" their chisels to the work and not to a measurement. But I found it interesting that with today's equipment for making chisels they didn't make the chisels more accurate in width.

Here's a question for Patrick Chase: You said that Narex shapes and sharpens before heat treatment. Would heat treatment cause these differences in the width from nominal? Or were they just not machines to the exact size in the beginning?

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

This really isn't a problem because most people "fit" their chisels to the work and not to a measurement. But I found it interesting that with today's equipment for making chisels they didn't make the chisels more accurate in width.

My Narex mortise chisel hasn't been checked for size. It just cut two dozen 1X1-1/4" mortises without having to be resharpened. It was in pine, so not too tough a test.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

I don't expect a $9 chisel to perform like a $30 chisel. I have some Narex mortise chisels that I have been happy with, but I don't use them often.