Cast steel chisels

[John Holland]

Technical question from new member, any information gratyefully received.

In a number of threads about chisels some contributors suggest vintage cast steel chisels instead of new western chisels. I have happily used a set of Robert Sorby Gilt Edge bench chisels for some years, the steel takes and keeps a keen edge. Even better from my amateurs point of view they have exceedingly comfortable London type handles.

I have also inherited tools from my Grandfather who apprenticed as a railway coach (passenger car in US?) builder when they were made of wood in the 30's. I have his tool box, plain on the outside, fancy mahogany inside, and a number of tools including chisels, some he had new, some second hand so maybe pre great war. They are Sorbys and Wards, marked cast steel.

What is the difference/advantage of these over modern forged O1 or A2 steels, is there a difference in grain sizes? how do they compare in hardness and toughness? I don't use the chisels at the moment but I do find cast steel tenon saws better to use. I cannot even imagine how they cast such thin sections as the saw blades, maybe thats why no-one makes them anymore.

Anyone any information, or experience of how the steels compare?

[harry strasil]

You have to understand the terminology of the time. They didn't have the ability to make high carbon steel as we know it, so they put wrought iron into a sealed box with charcoal(pure carbon) and left in the forge till it blistered, (the carbon adhered to the wrought iron) till it looked like blisters. This Blister steel was then forged under hammers till it blended with the Wrought. Often times it was drawn out, cut almost through and faggot welded back to itself to amalgamate the carbon better throughout the Wrought, This was called improved blister steel. To further amalgamate the carbon throughout the Iron it was often remelted and poured into ingots, That is where the term Cast Steel comes from. It was then forged into different tools and or Rolled out into thin sheets for making saws. The Cast Steel Varies greatly depending on where it was made. Generally it made for excellent tools that would last a long time and hold an edge well.

Before Cast Steel, chisels and plane blades had a Laid On cutting edge, this was a thin layer of improved blister steel forge welded or (laid on) to the Soft Wrought Iron (which has almost 0% carbon content). Thats why older plane blades were thicker at the cutting edge. I prefer the laid on plane blades and chisels as they seem to hold an edge longer than most cutting tools.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Today a common term for encasing the metal in carbon is "Diamond Block" The process is used for High Speed Steel in small shops.

In high end or production processes they use reducing atmosphere and molten salt baths in stages.

[Mike Henderson]

To expand a bit on Harry's post, "cast steel" is also known as "crucible steel". The basic process was invented by Benjamin Huntsman, an Englishman, in about 1740.

Iron ore is smelted in a blast furnace which produces a material which is iron with a fairly high carbon content, and a variety of other elements which depend upon the ore used. This material is commonly called "cast iron", or "pig iron" and has a carbon content beyond that necessary for steel. In the time referred to by Harry, that cast iron would be further processed in a forge where it would be repeatedly heated and hammered. Carbon has a high affinity for oxygen so the carbon would be "burned" out of the cast iron, leaving a low carbon iron, generally known as wrought iron.

It's possible to process the cast iron so that not all of the carbon was removed, but it was a difficult, hard to control process.

The first decent technique for making steel from wrought iron was blister steel. First, the wrought iron had to be made from special ores from Sweden which had very low levels of phosphorus. Phosphorus causes the resulting metal to be brittle.

Thin strips of this wrought iron were placed in clay boxes with carbon bearing material, such as charcoal. The strips were layered with the charcoal and the box was sealed so that air could not get in. The box was then placed in a furnace and heated for a long time, perhaps a week. During that time, the carbon diffused into the iron, leaving the characteristic blisters on the surface.

When removed from the furnace, the strips were not uniform in their carbon content - there was much more carbon in the outside than on the inside. The strips were then hammered together, and sometimes folded and hammered, as Harry mentioned, in an attempt to make the steel more homogeneous, but the general result was material that had layers of high and low carbon, leading to difficulties in hardening the steel.

Huntsman was looking for steel that could be used for clock springs and invented the crucible process. He took pieces of blister steel and put them in an air tight crucible which was then placed in a furnace which got hot enough to melt steel. Other materials were placed in the crucible to remove (into the slag) elements which were not desired. The melting of the steel allowed the production of steel with homogeneous carbon content.

This long process made steel very expensive, compared to cast or wrought iron, but until the Bessemer process came along, it was about the only way to produce steel in any quantity (and that quantity was small). Because cast steel was so expensive, it was not used for the whole tool - the tool was made of low carbon steel (wrought iron) and the cast steel was "laid on" (forge welded) to the wrought iron for the cutting edge. That why you see "layers" in a cast steel tool - the cast steel edge usually take a brighter shine than the wrought iron.

Bessemer's process allowed the production of steel in mass quantities but it did not produce good steel. The primary product produced from Bessemer steel was railroad rails. Bessemer steel suffered from phosphorus contamination due to the ores used.

The basic open hearth process came along shortly after Bessemer's process and it could produce decent steel from phosphorus containing ores.

Through this all, the crucible process endured, producing the best steel until the electric arc furnace came along. The last crucible process furnace was shut down in the 1960's.

Mike

[added note - modern steels are generally better than crucible steel because there's much better process control today - the steel is consistent batch-to-batch. In the 1800's the steel produced was variable due to the poor process control - both from the raw material to the heating and melting steps. The one good thing about old steel is that "only the best survived" - meaning that our ancestors probably scrapped the worst steel and kept the best. So your cast steel chisels are likely to be very usable, fine tools.]

[Don C Peterson]

Thanks Jr. and Mike,

Your posts filled in a few gaps in my understanding. It all makes much more sense now.

[Dan Racette]

Thanks guys.

Would it be too bold to say that this is a rudimentary comparison to the Japanese laminated steel process, or about as close as it gets for EAST to WEST comparison?

The reason I suggest it, is the working of the elements together to create a stronger product, and the keeping of the softer product just off of the cutting edge. Or is it much different and that's why the Japanese process still is used today?

Just trying to bring sense to the whole metallurgy, in an almost basic sense. Of course the Japanese process is very much more handworked, and I mean no sense of dishonor to the craftsmen, if the comparison is inappropriate.

Dan

[David DeCristoforo]

In a very, as you say, "rudimentary" way, yes it's the same principal. A thin layer of harder steel is laminated to a softer one.

YM

[Mike Henderson]

The Japanese process of layering is done for a different reason than cast steel was layered. Cast steel was layered on only for the cutting edge because it was expensive - if it had been low cost, the whole tool would have been made of cast steel. The steel the Japanese use for chisel edges is not expensive - it's pretty ordinary commercial carbon steel.

The reason Japansese chisels are layered is that the carbon steel edge is heat treated so that the carbon steel is much harder than western chisels.

Now, let me divert for a minute. To make a good cutting tool, you need two things in the steel: Hardness for edge retention (so the edge doesn't "mush" or "roll" in use), and Toughness to stand up to shock (being pounded on without chipping). If you heat treat steel to be very hard, it loses toughness and becomes brittle - when you pound on, or pry with, the tool, the edge may chip. Western chisels choose a level of hardness that also provides a decent amount of toughness.

Japanese chisels, on the other hand, choose a level of hardness for the edge steel that sacrifices toughness. If the Japanese chisel was made just of the high carbon steel, and hardened to the level that Japanese chisels are, the tool might fracture in half if you dropped it on a hard surface, or pried with it.

So what the Japanese smiths do is make the bulk of the tool from low carbon steel (which won't harden) and lay on an edge of carbon steel. When the tool is heat treated, only the working edge hardens.

In use, the softer low carbon steel absorbs shock and does not fracture. It's an attempt to get the best of both worlds, hardness and toughness.

And now, some personal observations and opinions. I bought some Japanese chisels in my never ending quest for the perfect chisel. I did not find that the edges held up any longer than my western chisels, or at least not so much longer that I noticed. I also found that it's easy to chip the edge of a Japanese chisel, which puts you back to the coarse stone to take a fair amount of steel off to repair the edge.

My present "best" set of chisels are the LN chisels. They have certain shortcomings but (1) they take a good edge, (2) retain that edge for a decent amount of time, and (3) have a socket for the handle which allows you to easily make your own handles to suit your hand.

#3 is one of my complaints about Japanese chisels. They're hooped on the end which makes them uncomfortable in my hand, and the way the handles are joined to the iron it's very difficult to make new handles. I wish the Japanese smiths would try new things and offer their chisels with sockets so that the customer could easily re-handle them for comfort.

Mike

[David DeCristoforo]

"I wish the Japanese smiths would try new things..."

GASP!!!!

YM

PS It's true what you say about the Japanese edge tools being almost "too hard" and therefore "too brittle". But remember that most traditional Japanese woodworking was done in much softer woods than were commonly used in "the west", lots of pine and cedar which is much easier on the edges.....

[John Holland]

Thanks for that information, based on that it's got to be worth cleaning them up and sharpening them for use.

Also tools like this are still abundant at boot sales and the like and cheap to boot, so i shall fill in the gaps.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...But remember that most traditional Japanese woodworking was done in much softer woods than were commonly used in "the west", lots of pine and cedar which is much easier on the edges.....

And then there are Japanese white oak, red oak, hon red oak, gumi, tsugi, .... Are these woods are used in applications that don't need planing and/or chiseling?

Pam

[Pam Niedermayer]

...And now, some personal observations and opinions. I bought some Japanese chisels in my never ending quest for the perfect chisel. I did not find that the edges held up any longer than my western chisels, or at least not so much longer that I noticed. I also found that it's easy to chip the edge of a Japanese chisel, which puts you back to the coarse stone to take a fair amount of steel off to repair the edge....

Who made your chisels, Mike?

Pam

[Mike Henderson]

Who made your chisels, Mike?

Pam
Don't know/remember, Pam. Two sources, though.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

[snip]PS It's true what you say about the Japanese edge tools being almost "too hard" and therefore "too brittle". But remember that most traditional Japanese woodworking was done in much softer woods than were commonly used in "the west", lots of pine and cedar which is much easier on the edges.....
Yes, I'm sure the Japanese chisel was developed to best meet the needs of the craftsmen who were working in that wood. My woodworking instructor commented something similar - he said that soft wood requires a very hard edge, while hard wood requires a softer edge. Maybe what he meant was that working hardwood requires a chisel with more toughness, rather than a harder edge.

Mike

[Dan Racette]

My experience has been different.

I have not liked my experience with A2 steel, of which the LN chisels have. I have found that they are initially sharp, then after about two slices, they are at about 80% capacity, and they stay at that capacity for a very long time.

I have found that HCS gets a much keener edge, remains at "100%" much longer, but you have to go back to the stone much sooner, than A2. For example, time and time again, I've seen the two cherries chisels not be able to get as sharp in the same techniques as a marples or a ashley iles. The marple, being of pretty mediocre quality.

I have also found the opposite to be true with Japanese chisels. The one or two experiences that I have had with "marked" chisels, that is chisels that are marked with a makers mark, and sold in Japan, have been nothing short of stellar. The one mokume, unbelieveable. I should underscore that the person that sharpened these had years of experience that I do not have. NO gadgets, no guides, etc. I have a couple of "western" and couple of "japanese" chisels but they come from various dotcom sources and they would be what I represent as the "bud" and the "miller lite" of the finer chisels (so I guess in beer terms, more the sam adams, higher up than bud). So I guess I am saying to Mike, that I wouldn't judge 'all japanese chisels' based on an American dotcom purchase of a sub $100 chisel. (no offense Mike if that's not what you did).

Why I posted about cast steel, is that my great grandfathers swedish cast steel plane recently came into my possession and I noticed that it wouldn't sharpen on my PSA paper, and only my waterstones/diamond stones. I also noticed it held a great edge and I haven't quite determined it's quality of cut. I was wondering about the rudimentary comparison to Japanese method of hammering and combining metal for strength of edge characteristics to see if that's why I might be getting the same results.

So, right now I am pursuing one paring chisel, based on experimentation, trial and error, buying and selling, I would say that there are several candidates and the only "western" candidate is a Barr Tools, at least that I have found. The others are all Japanese, and need me to be saving for some time.

Just my feelings and observations so far.

I'd welcome friendly comment.

dan

[Mike Henderson]

Certainly, everyone's experience with different chisels are different.

From a technical point of view, I'd like to understand why "name" Japanese chisels are better, if they are. The steel used for the working edge by name Japanese smiths is fairly ordinary commercial carbon steel, and the heat treating is all done by eye. There's nothing from a technical point of view (that I'm aware of) in the method of production that would cause the working edge to be better from one smith to another.

If anyone has some information about the steel that goes into the working edge of Japanese chisels from different smiths, or differences in the process of making them, I'd certainly appreciate the information.

There's the well known "halo" effect in marketing where a buyer thinks highly of a purchase when a high price is paid and I suspect that some of that is at work in high priced Japanese chisels.

Mike

[Dan Racette]

perhaps Yoshikuni or Pam can chime in, but I believe that the process of making a japanese chisel is more than simply heat treating metal. I believe that the metalsmith actually spends time and experience to form and fold the metal together to create a new property, hence my statement of "isn't this cast steel a rudimentary comparison". So I don't believe that artisans in Japan go buy white steel from hitachi, cut it, harden it, and make a chisel. I am saying it's my understanding there is much more smithing that is involved and since there is waste in that type of process, like was discussed in the crucible steel process, the good steel is more expensive.

Could someone with more Japanese steel experience help me out here? I might be way off track.

I think the price and the name correspond with the ability of the smith to be able to control the process and outcome of the product consistently, again similar to crucible steel.

Although, not on a mass production scale, of course.

[Mike Henderson]

Japanese chisels are artisan products and therefore reflect the cost of making each one by hand. And many people appreciate an artisan produced tool - they like the fact that they are using something made essentially completely from the hand and mind of another person. I know people here in the United States who purchased a product from a smith - perhaps they even watched it being made - and that item has significant meaning to them.

I put handmade Japanese chisels in the same category.

If every woodworker bought a Japanese style chisel, we'd have figured out what makes them "good" and we'd be making them by machine and selling them for a lot less money. Those chisels would be even better than the handmade chisels because we'd have better process control. (maybe they'd even have a socket handle):)

I have no fight with people who like Japanese chisels - everyone should use what they like. But absent some quantification of what makes a Japanese chisel better than a Western chisel, I'll continue to have doubts about how well they work for western woodworking.

Mike

[Dan Racette]

I'm going to have to disagree.

Sometimes we can quantify things, by observation, i.e. microscopy, metallurgic study, etc.

However I feel that it is a Western philosophy to think that "we'd have figured out what makes them "good" and we'd be making them by machine".

Not all things can be made by machine and all things that are made by machine aren't necessarily made better than when they were made by hand.

I also believe that "the west" has had plenty of time to "figure it out", and isn't mass producing them, therefore they aren't as good, is not a sound foundation for evaluating Japanese Chisels either.

I think you should see if you can get your hands on some good Eastern Steel. But I would also think that if you were to approach someone that owned some, you might want to keep your ideas of mass production to yourself.

Just my thoughts, but I'd welcome others. I'm not right, as there is no RIGHT.


Dan

[Mike Henderson]

If you can't quantify it, it falls into the realm of magic.

I can't argue against magic. I can only argue logic and measurements.

Mike

[added note: any time a buyer is faced with an alternative product (to one s/he is presently using) s/he will ask, "What's better about it? And why is it better?" Basically, I'm asking those same questions about Japanese chisels.]

[Dan Racette]

Well in my case I walked up to a piece of wood, and I cut the piece of wood, and it cut better. You can't quantify it any better than that!

If you need data, and by reading your website, I assume you do, I cannot support my "aruguement" with data. However, I think it is unwise to "argue" against the face of hands on testing vs. theoretical science, and I was trying to say that your hands on testing was not with a well represented data set.

I think that skills and tools of the Japanese tooling are not well represented here, and need to be given more room to bloom.

To refer to your "magic" reference, and to being machine made, I guess it's sort of like making eggs. Why don't all the american diners have egg making machines in them? Why do they still make them by hand? Because machines haven't quite made them better. I could be off in my analogy.

I'm far from a technophobe, I'm no luddite. Someday machines will probably make eggs better, and I believe someday, Japanese chisel making techniques with be machine made better. I guess what I am trying to say that we are at a gap in machine to hand-made processes here and now, and for now there are not superior (as far as I know) machine-made chisels out there for that process, same for saws. There are "good", but not excellent. I just don't think process has caught up. I also don't think there is a good combination of tool out there, still, that IMHO, that quite rivals the tool for its purpose. (I'm speaking of paring chisels specifically). I am also speaking very ill of A2 steel and it's inability to get sharp enough to pare properly. Now the best VALUE continues to be Hcs. But the sharpest edge is good Hcs. And the superior of them that I was lucky enough to use was a stamped paring chisel.

Although it could be magic.

Mike we should probably go somewhere else and stop talking on a Cast Steel Thread.

[David DeCristoforo]

"Japanese white oak, red oak, hon red oak, gumi, tsugi, .... Are these woods are used in applications that don't need planing and/or chiseling?"

Of course not. I did say "most". Usually, chisels and saws intended for working these harder woods were different in terms of hardness (brittleness) cutting angle etc. as were (are) saws. I only meant to say that Japanese tools are much harder in general and may take some getting used to. I have seen a number of very unhappy faces on those who bought expensive Japanese saws and damaged the cutting edges very quickly because they did not understand just how brittle they can be. The slightest twist while cutting and snap go some teeth. Or a bit too much pressure on the "backstroke" and there go few more! Of course this thread is about chisels not saws.....

YM

[Pam Niedermayer]

Well, Mike and Dan, you've pretty much covered it. I come down mostly on Dan's end of the discussion. In my experience, high quality, hand made, Japanese tools have proven themselves to be superior, at the cost of having to learn a bit more about sharpening and use. I also very much like very old western tools, which were laminated. There are also some top quality western tools being made today.

Today, I don't care a bit about white vs blue vs Swedish steels and other such arguments. I buy by the name of the blacksmith (several, actually), choosing from a list of those whose tools have proven themselves to me. I also take advice from those in the know, so every now and then I add another name to that list.

As to machines doing it better, I don't think that holds water. What is better? Art or some false precision? The care that many furniture makers take or the short time it can be slapped together? I prefer to think that custom furniture by someone who cares is superior; and I feel the same way about my tools.

Pam

[Mike Henderson]

Well in my case I walked up to a piece of wood, and I cut the piece of wood, and it cut better. You can't quantify it any better than that!

If you need data, and by reading your website, I assume you do, I cannot support my "aruguement" with data. However, I think it is unwise to "argue" against the face of hands on testing vs. theoretical science, and I was trying to say that your hands on testing was not with a well represented data set.

Could be. I bought Japanese chisels from two sources and tried them in real western woodworking and found I preferred western chisels.

Japanese chisels have been around for a long time and many woodworkers have had the opportunity to try them out. While I don't have numbers, I would expect that if many people found them to be excellent tools for western woodworking, we'd have lots of postings here (something like SawStop:)).

When I look at how Japanese chisels are made, I see a fairly simple tool made using primitive equipment, and optimized to the needs of the Japanese woodworker, who primarily works in softwood.

When discussing Japanese chisels, the response to someone like me, who did not have a good experience with the tools, is to recommend I should purchase a more expensive Japanese chisel - in the $100+ each range. I find it hard to understand, and this is what I'm asking, what the difference is between a lower cost Japanese chisel and an expensive Japanese chisel, if there is any difference. Before I'd spend that much money for a chisel I want some data.

To offer a contrast, an affeciado of LN chisels can describe the metal the chisel is made from - and the experience people have had with that steel, the precision machining, the pre-flattened back, the socketed handle, and the customer service. Affeciados of Japanese chisels need to do something similar if they expect to convince people that expensive Japanese chisels are wonderful.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

As to machines doing it better, I don't think that holds water. What is better? Art or some false precision? The care that many furniture makers take or the short time it can be slapped together? I prefer to think that custom furniture by someone who cares is superior; and I feel the same way about my tools.

Pam
I think that's a very valid position to take, Pam. Many people appreciate artisan products, be they tools or furniture. And some Japanese chisels are works of art, especially those with the patterns in the metal, and the buyers feel they are worth every penny paid. For many people, there's a special feeling when working with an artisan produced tool - a connection between the maker and the user.

My questions have to do more with the non-artistic nature of the tools. Are expensive Japanese chisels "better" at the mundane tasks of western woodworking? And if so, why?

Those are the questions that never seem to get answered when we discuss Japanese tools.

Mike

[Pam Niedermayer]

...
My questions have to do more with the non-artistic nature of the tools. Are expensive Japanese chisels "better" at the mundane tasks of western woodworking? And if so, why?...

Yeah, but I don't really care about the non-artistic natures. I like the way these tools make me feel when working wood, hard or soft, log or lumber. I like it that I can work half a day or all day without breaking my state of non-thinking concentration to sharpen tools (of course, even better would be if I were to incorporate sharpening into that state, I'm working on it :). I like it that the tools just seem to work the way I seem to think they should (sort of like my BMW R/90S compared to a Honda or Harley - on the Beemer, I just think about where I'm going and it does it; whereas on the Honda/Harley, I've got to muscle it around). It's just plain fun to use these tools.

I strongly recommend that anyone thinking of getting Japanese tools first buy a Tasai ultra (or very) thin paring chisel (available at http://www.japantool-iida.com/ - don't worry about the extra expense of mokume, this does nothing to enhance performance) and learn how to sharpen it. If using such a chisel doesn't make you feel masterful, sell it on ebay (you most likely won't lose money) and forget it.

However, buying cheap Japanese chisels and pronouncing on their characteristics as if they were representative of all Japanese chisels is like buying some soft or unsharpenable western chisels and pronouncing all western chisels crummy.

Pam

[harry strasil]

all the pros and cons has made for some interesting insight into the tools in question, but it boils down to what kind of experience the end user had with a certain style or brand or feel of a given tool.

An old saying comes to mind that I had on a placard in my blacksmith shop, "I cannot give you the formula for SUCCESS, but I can give the formula for FAILURE, Try to please EVERYONE." Herbert Swope.

Its kinda like Farm Equipment and Motor Vehicles, as well as everything else that is produced that we use. Each INDIVIDUAL developes a preference because of personal experience or that was the type or brand they were raised with.

I personally prefer the older often Antique tools, but then I am almost an Antique myself. And being in the blacksmithing and repair business almost my whole life, I don't quite hold to what my Father taught me, (if it's not broke, don't fix it), as I often modify almost all of the tools I used to make a living with to suit my fancy and to suit my needs.

Machine made tools are Ok to some extent, but if an error occurs, often it takes the end user to find it and then they are soured on that particular brand for awhile and sometimes forever. Most specifically some machine made tools are and were made and designed by an engineer of some sort who never had to use or the need to USE the particular item they designed. Thus the tool is not user friendly to the end user.

Individually forged or made tools on the other hand have some of the same problems as there fabrication depends wholly on the skills of the person that made them. The REPUTATION of the indivdual makers is at stake every time they complete and market one of their tools, and they endevour to make the very best tool there skill allows. In this respect an off day or person problems can influence the end result.

Each of us has tools or tooling that we like and/or dislike, many determined by actual use, how they feel, or from word of mouth from others we respect.

I am opinionated about my personal tools and the way I prefer to use them and am not going to change. The japanese tools are for the most part used backwards to the way I was taught and learned and as short as their chisels are, they are worn out to start with in my opinion. There is another reason also that I prefer to keep to myself so I won't go into it.

All the words and opinions in this thread, mine included are just that. The personal opinion of the individual and should be treated as such. If a person takes the advise of another and is not satisfied with the end result, they often blame the individual that gave them the advise they asked for. It is the responsibility of the individual asking for the advise to weigh all the options and make their own decision as to what will work the best for them.

Respectfully
Jr Strasil

Sorry for all the hot air, but its winter time and who knows someone may appreciate the hot air. LOL

[Dan Racette]

I was hoping to hear from you. I sure appreciate your wisdom, and I was for sure not expecting you to be a Japanese tool user. I too own an antique tractor! ('51 Ford) so I am a bit of an enigma.

I am glad to hear your wisdom about hand made tools and REPUTATION.

I am starting a new discussion post, since everyone here was so friendly and we have had such good topic talk. Please join my new post, as this was not the the OP's intention.

New Topic is entitled: East & West -- Machine Made & Hand Made