Millers Falls Cigar Shave

[Jim Koepke]

One of my more recent habits is checking the SMC Classifieds often. Many times desired treasures have been seen at decent prices only to see someone else has already arranged to purchase the item. Many times items sell within an hour or less of being listed.

Recently my luck changed on one item, though a couple of books later got by me by a few minutes.

The treasured item was a Millers Falls Cigar Shave. It arrived Saturday. The seller mentioned they were never able to get it to work. From having read a previous post on these my suspicion was there was an insufficient relief angle on the blade. This turned out to be part of the cause of not working:

468960

This indicates the back of the bevel was preventing the cutting edge from contacting the surface of the work.

The blade is almost impossible to hold by hand to regrind the bevel. Making a holder seemed like the thing to do:

468956

This was done with a couple hollow molding planes. This worked well for preliminary grinding:

468955

Notice the blade is being held at a slight angle. The bevel was in line with the face of the holder.

Learning from mistakes has made me among the most learned of men.

For anyone who finds themselves in this situation, it would have been helpful for me to make a mark on the blade for where the bevel should stop. Mine got to the point of almost being over ground.

The holder worked well on the grinder. It wasn’t too good for final honing on a stone. The other side of the piece of scrap used to make a blade holder was shaped with a round molding plane:

468961

Note: this was a different size than the hollows used for the inside curve.

This worked well for working the relief bevel:

468958

It also worked for honing the inside bevel:

468957

It was necessary to prop the stone up on the side of the box for the inside bevel.

It was a bit fidgety getting this shave to work.

No matter how the blade was set, it was still below the very short sole of the shave. A fine toothed file was used to realign the sole a few thousandths of an inch.

468959

This will likely take a few more uses to get used to, just like my other curved shaves.

jtk

[Rob Luter]

Nice solution. I had one of those and only got it sharpened properly one time. Too fussy for me.

[steven c newman]

Is that the No. 1, or the No.2 Cigar size....?

[Jim Koepke]

Is that the No. 1, or the No.2 Cigar size....?

To the best of my knowledge it is a #1 spokeshave.

The #2, also to the best of my knowledge, has an adjustable sole that can be flat or curved. It also has a flat blade.

Here is an image of the #2 shave from Jim Bode Tools:

468997

Interesting the site for Millers Falls tools > https://oldtoolheaven.com > doesn't have anything on Millers Falls spokeshaves.

jtk

[Jim Ritter]

I made a holder very similar to yours for sharpening the blade but I made it long enough to be held in an Eclipse style blade holder. I then drew lines in the holder so it could be replace to the same spot the next time I needed it.
Jim

[Philip Glover]

I have always wanted to try one.
Anyways, here is another link https://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/the-millers-falls-no-1-spokeshave/

PCG

[Axel de Pugey]

Dear Jim, many thanks for this thread.

I really like working with the MF #2 as seen here (https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?293521-A-simple-toolbox-and-a-Drill-Brace-test&p=3142578#post3142578), but I could never make MF #1 work.
I always suspected the causes you are explaining and my tool seem to be in the exact same case as yours.

I wonder if the angle was correct from the factory as it looks like machine marks on the longer bevel of mine:
469039

Jim, would you be kind enough and please post the exact same picture as your first picture now that the blade is reground?

It would be easier for me to understand what is the correct geometry.
Many thanks

[Jim Koepke]

Jim, would you be kind enough and please post the exact same picture as your first picture now that the blade is reground?

It will likely be much later today before being able to post an image due to an appointment in town.

Also remember my comment:


For anyone who finds themselves in this situation, it would have been helpful for me to make a mark on the blade for where the bevel should stop. Mine got to the point of almost being over ground.

In other words, don't do it as much as I did. :eek: :D

jtk

[Stephen Rosenthal]

I appreciate Jim keeping my identity secret but I’m the fellow who sold Jim the cigar shave. Yep, like many, many others I never could get it to work, and after a few years of intermittent frustration finally decided to sell it. Frankly I was nervous about doing so because I was fearful that the tool had an unfixable defect and didn’t want to anyone to feel I was ripping them off. But I described it accurately and included a number of photos, so felt anyone who bought it would be aware of the issues. I’m very glad Jim was able to resurrect this unique shave and shared the process. I hope it will help others who may have difficulties with this shave.

Axel: it’s hard to be certain from your photo, but it looks like you have the wrong side of the blade mounted at the sole. If it is mounted correctly then the blade is really mangled and will require a lot of work to fix it.

[Frederick Skelly]

I knew you'd figure it out, when I saw you'd bought that item. Good post. Thanks Jim!

[Jim Koepke]

Dear Jim, many thanks for this thread.

I really like working with the MF #2 as seen here (https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?293521-A-simple-toolbox-and-a-Drill-Brace-test&p=3142578#post3142578), but I could never make MF #1 work.
I always suspected the causes you are explaining and my tool seem to be in the exact same case as yours.

I wonder if the angle was correct from the factory as it looks like machine marks on the longer bevel of mine:
469039

Jim, would you be kind enough and please post the exact same picture as your first picture now that the blade is reground?

It would be easier for me to understand what is the correct geometry.
Many thanks

Axel, here is the best image taken this evening:

469104

The piece of wood is on the bevel. The short sole of shave is lower than the blade. If the bevel is too steep, the front of the sole and the top of the bevel leave the edge floating above the work surface.

Yours does look like the top of the bevel hits the wood before the edge can make contact.

Mine, on the other hand, has almost too much of a bevel. That will come down over time and sharpening.

jtk

[Axel de Pugey]

Axel: it’s hard to be certain from your photo, but it looks like you have the wrong side of the blade mounted at the sole. If it is mounted correctly then the blade is really mangled and will require a lot of work to fix it.

Thank you Stephen. In fact the blade has got a bevel only on one end, so I would guess "then the blade is really mangled"


And Thank you Jim for the extra picture


(...) The short sole of shave is lower than the blade. If the bevel is too steep, the front of the sole and the top of the bevel leave the edge floating above the work surface.(...)

For me to achieve this, I need to rotate the blade to the point it is passed the mouth, hence closing it completely!





It looks like the previous owners did a totally different angle than the original one

https://pic.higo.pm/bois/outils/MF1_1.jpg

https://pic.higo.pm/bois/outils/MF1_2.jpg

I suppose I should lower the bump between the actual bevel and the flat from the machine marks.
It is clear that from your picture and one from the link (https://workingbyhand.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/mfno1_blades.jpg) provided by Philip Glover (thanks), the bevel is going as far as the machine marks on my blade.



Furthermore, I would not want to highjack Jim’s topic on the sharpening of this tool, but mine has got four holes in the body instead of two.
They looks absolutely identical so I guess they are original. I am 100% sure to have seen others like this on eBay, but it is really seldom.

1. Is there a type study for these tools?
2. I cannot figure out the point of these 2 extra holes, if I move the blade there, the mouth is 1cm wide! Can somebody shed light on these holes?

https://pic.higo.pm/bois/outils/MF1_3.jpg

Many thanks for your help

[Stephen Rosenthal]

“1. Is there a type study for these tools?
2. I cannot figure out the point of these 2 extra holes, if I move the blade there, the mouth is 1cm wide! Can somebody shed light on these holes?”

Axel et al,

Check out this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/R2eqct-UU7o

It’s almost 2 hours long, but delves into almost everything about the MF cigar shave, including the 4 hole version. Didn’t resolve my difficulties, but interesting. Btw, for those of you unfamiliar with it, this is a fantastic YouTube channel.

[Jim Koepke]

1. Is there a type study for these tools?
2. I cannot figure out the point of these 2 extra holes, if I move the blade there, the mouth is 1cm wide! Can somebody shed light on these holes?

You are welcome for the image Axel. Before and after images are always helpful, it should have been included in the first post. I must have gotten lucky with the before shot. The after shot took me at least a half a dozen tries to get something usable.

Your blade looks like it has a secondary bevel. That doesn't work so well on a bevel down blade with a very small relief angle. This blade has a micro bevel on the inside of the curve.

To my knowledge there isn't a type study. Mine has a patent date of Feb 19, 1884 > https://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?number=293651&typeCode=0 < One site says it disappeared from the market around 1910. That is a pretty short time period for type study.

The extra holes may be from the factory or they may have been added by a previous owner. While looking around for more information one (Jim Bode) site selling this shave said it could be set up with the blade reversed to use the round part of the shave for the sole. Though his pictures do not show extra holes. Reversing the blade on mine didn't seem to work that way. You might try reversing the blade to see if yours can be used in such a fashion.

jtk

[Dave Anderson NH]

Hey Phil, call me before the next guild or hand tools meeting and I'll bring a couple. I think I have 3 and they all work.

[Scott Winners]

Thank you for solving this Jim. I had one and probably spent 40 hours with sand paper wrapepd around a stick trying to get the inside of the iron clean. I sold it off cheap to someone with a documented history of good prolem solving skills hear, I dunno if he got his working or not.

[Axel de Pugey]

(...)Check out this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/R2eqct-UU7o

It’s almost 2 hours long, but delves into almost everything about the MF cigar shave, including the 4 hole version. Didn’t resolve my difficulties, but interesting. (...)

Hi Stephen, many thanks for the link. I agree with you, we did not learn much about sharpening but that definately answered the question about different types, many thanks!



(...)Your blade looks like it has a secondary bevel. That doesn't work so well on a bevel down blade with a very small relief angle. This blade has a micro bevel on the inside of the curve.(...)

Hi Jim, thank you for your advice. I agree this secondary bevel looks wrong and seems in the way, so I will definately get rid of this first. In addition I can see that my blade has 0 bevel inside the curve so I will add this as it is not the first time I hear about it for this specific spokeshave. Many thanks for your help.

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
Hi Jim, thank you for your advice. I agree this secondary bevel looks wrong and seems in the way, so I will definately get rid of this first. In addition I can see that my blade has 0 bevel inside the curve so I will add this as it is not the first time I hear about it for this specific spokeshave. Many thanks for your help.

You are welcome Axel. Here is an old thread on the subject > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?273263 < The 12th post has an instruction sheet for sharpening what looks to be a copy of the Millers Falls Cigar Shave.

There are also a few others in the thread who have found their own solutions to the mystery of these odd shaves.

jtk

[Axel de Pugey]

Thank you Jim, I still have to read these other threads. I normally always do a search before posting a question, but this was a new thread.

I would like to come back on Stephen's link:


Axel et al,

Check out this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/R2eqct-UU7o

It’s almost 2 hours long, but delves into almost everything about the MF cigar shave, including the 4 hole version. Didn’t resolve my difficulties, but interesting. Btw, for those of you unfamiliar with it, this is a fantastic YouTube channel.


I have first viewed only the part of the kilted guy and did not think much of it...But today I took the time to view the second part with all the Q&A of the group, and it is by far more interesting!
It appears that the four holes version appeared in the 1894 catalogue, while the two holes version appeared only at least from 1915.

But in my very case, I was extremely interested at 1:32 when an individual showed that his version (four holes like mine) was not milled according to the patent. The lip of the mouth should be under the circumference of the tool (top left of x’), while his and mine, are joining the circumference of the tool.

https://pic.higo.pm/bois/outils/MF1_4.jpg

https://pic.higo.pm/bois/outils/MF1_5.jpg


So rather than milling the actual flat of the sole down and potentially making a big mess, honing an inside bevel might really help.
I understand most people hone an inside bevel anyway, but in my situation I think the tool cannot physically cut without it.
I have other priorities, but I will try that when I can.

Thanks again for the link Stephen.