Some CTS-XHP tools steel observations.

[Warren Mickley]

I actually spent quite a bit of time talking with several Lee Valley people about their planned chisels including one guy who was supposedly in charge of designing the chisels. They were certainly interested in hearing out my concerns. I did bring up some topics they seemed to not have discussed before. For example, I don't think it had occurred to any of them that some might want to remove and replace the handles or buy chisels unhandled.

[Patrick Chase]

I actually spent quite a bit of time talking with several Lee Valley people about their planned chisels including one guy who was supposedly in charge of designing the chisels. They were certainly interested in hearing out my concerns. I did bring up some topics they seemed to not have discussed before. For example, I don't think it had occurred to any of them that some might want to remove and replace the handles or buy chisels unhandled.

As an LV customer I am actually very glad to hear that (seriously). I think that you invariably have a valid point, even if I sometimes think it's overly strong.

[Derek Cohen]

For example, I don't think it had occurred to any of them that some might want to remove and replace the handles or buy chisels unhandled.

Warren, I understand the point you are making, and I am not criticising this. The issue of chisel handles, however, is a mine field. Not only that what fits one hand does not necessarily fit another, but that chisels are held and used differently by so many. Who is to say what is right?

The Veritas handles are build like a Japanese handle, having a combined tang and socket. Japanese handles are not considered the type to modify - even replacing one is a big deal. Their handles are designed either for chopping or paring. Whether a handle design works for one depends on the tasks for which it is used, and how this is done. For example, a longer handle is good for adjusting angle when paring (the Veritas is longer than the average), or chopping (would a hooped end have been better?), or tapered in the 18th century tradition (is this more ergonomic or just more economic?).

One cannot exclude the design of the blade as part of the whole.

At the end of the day, Veritas offer another choice. Clearly they will not necessarily suit a dyed-in-the-wool 18th century woodworker. But then I doubt that many of the modern handtools would seem the same to a woodworker of that era.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Malcolm McLeod]

Let me see if I have this right as we pine for the days of yore:

When the apprentice (puppy) executes a task by exact method of the master, and always with the expected outcome, the master is thrilled.

When the apprentice (puppy) executes a task by a method not approved by the master and it turns out poorly, puppy is chastised, reprimanded, or fired, and boss is po'd.

When the apprentice (puppy) executes a task by a method not approved by the master and it turns out better, puppy is an innovator, a prodigy, and promoted (& boss is po'd since he's gotta hire new puppy.)

Ironic, but it seems progress and innovation are non-existent when the boss is happy. And if he's always perfectly happy, we'd all still live in the stone age.

I'd vote the puppies misbehave more often. ...Just me. ...Lots of improvements still to be made. ...Especially in steel.

[Kees Heiden]

Let's extend this thread a little further.

The woodworking craftsman from the 18th, early 19th century was a complete handtool specialist. He did everything with handtools, from the purchase of planks until the finished product. This period is often called the golden age of handtool woodworking. After that the handtools slowly but surely lost their prominent position, in some countries faster then others. After WW2 there weren't too many craftsman depending on chisels, handsaws, handplanes anymore except for some detail work, carving and the like.

So, the tools from the golden age were made for a large group of woodworkers making loads of wooden objects with handtools only. The toolmakers were working in a very competitive market. The clients demanded long lasting tools, that did the job perfectly for not too much money. A situation like that tends to create good tools that really work, innovation where neccessary, and tends to get rid of the duds pretty quickly.

Compare that to todays market of mostly elderly hobbyists who treat their tools like souvenirs and won't ever trash a chisel handle for example and you'll see why some of us think that the best handtools aren't going to be innovated today.

So what does this bring us. Let's have a look at some chisels, and I put this out as a discussion point and I don't claim to be an expert myself. I am just spraying some prejudices.

Chisels for example from the Seaton chest (late 18th century) or from Skokloster in Sweden (17th century). Most of the chisels are tanged chisels with large, wide and well formed bolsters. They are remarkably thin. Handles are beech or ash and have a rather simple shape, octagonal, tapered. The chisels are laminated, making for quick sharpening while at the same time allowing a higher hardness then tools from solid steel. The seaton chest also has socket chisels for heavy work, the sockets are forged and rough on the inside. And mortise chisels like the later oval bolster chisels. These have tapered blades so they don't bind up in the cut. My much later Dutch mortise chisels are like that too.

Now, what do two premium makers LN and LV give us?

LN makes socket chisels. They are not forged but machined. The sockets are very smooth inside. The mortise chisels have parallel sides. They are of course not laminated. These are all later innovations, but I think they are more a compromise to make the production easier then to improve the finished product.

LV makes a tanged chisel with something that looks a bit like a Japanese chisels but isn't quite the same. There is no real bolster. Compared to the Seaton and the skokloster chisels, and even compared to my E.A. Berg chisels they look very thick. These aren't laminated either. Changing the handle when you have split the old one after years of heavy malleting is quite a finicky operation. The PMV-11 steel is promissing but isn't quite as easy to sharpen as old fashioned cast steel, especially not because it isn't laminated. These chisels look to me inspired by the Japanese chisels with a western flavour and avoiding any forging work, they are also machined.

This is just my opinion, so feel free to shoot me down and prove that I am a romantic old fool. But please do so with logical arguments.

[Graham Haydon]

No need to shoot you down, nail struck firmly on the head!

[Kees Heiden]

But you are a romantic fool too, Graham 😃

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Think of the "traditional method" or "traditional design" as an early version of "crowd sourcing."

It used to puzzle me in church, listening to the old testament stories, how every few generations people seem to repeat the same mistakes. When you look at more modern history you see the same pattern. The pattern exists not because one generation was smarter than another, but because we are mortal. I will make mistakes and eventually learn from them. If I were not mortal, I could prevent my children from making my mistakes, but unfortunately some day they will be on their own and my accumulated experiences will not be available to them. If we all had unlimited intellectual capacity, perhaps we could transmit lessons perfectly from one generation to the next, but we do not, and so cannot. It is simply a matter of time before my children and grand-children are making mistakes I have made, just as I no doubt have repeated mistakes my ancestors made before me.

"Traditional" methods and designs are a sort of time capsule, that capture the accumulated experience and opinions of a very large number of now dead people. Chisels are not randomly shaped the way that they are. Beech is not randomly the wood of choice for planes. The choices of material, design, and manufacture are instead the result of experience, mistakes, and lessons learned. X-rays and 3D drawing software give us an advantage of sorts over those who came before us, but as Kees has pointed out, their numbers, and the volume of their accumulated experiences is something of tremendous advantage. Now they are dead, and cannot stand at our bench and tell us about the idea they had in 1892 and why it did not work out, but they can speak to us through their designs, the work they have left behind, and to some extent through books.

We have seen an example of this in the chip-breaker. When I started using planes, I was taught that "chipbreaker" was a misnomer used by the uneducated hack, that the proper name was "cap-iron", and that it had nothing to do with breaking chips. Now we all know that was all wrong. The entire time the information was right there in front of us, encapsulated in the designs, and even in the nomenclature. It would all be very simple if we were not mortal, and could perfectly preserve our lessons learned down the generations.

[Stewie Simpson]

Nicholas; its interesting your raise the topic on cap irons. I am currently refurbishing an early double iron wooden try plane that was manufactured by one of U.Ks better known early tool makers, Edward Preston & Sons, whose history dates back to as early as 1825. I have read recent recommendations on this site that suggest a 50 degree deflection angle is required on the front edge of the cap iron for it to function effectively as a chipbreaker. Bearing in mind that this plane in particular represents a time line of (1889 - 1932), that one would still expect to see a great depth of understanding on how the cap iron should function effectively, its bears little resemblance within original deflection angle to that being espoused today. Most intriguing.

Stewie;

[Malcolm McLeod]

Some ramblings....

Traditions can be a great thing, but some may wish to be cautious about choosing traditional methods.

How many traditionalist woodworkers still use traditional lighting? Fire up the whale oil lamp or just step outside into the sunshine (maybe). LEDs? Not in Roubo's workshop! Candles only, baby!!

Who still traditionally travels? Just grab that crank and fire the T-model up for a spin across the cobblestones (or rutted mud track). And seatbelts are for sissies! Or even better, "Saddle up boys!!" Traditional healing methods? The line forms here for application of leeches and hot coals. That line over there is for mercury to extend lifespan. Antibiotics? ...Oddly not mentioned in L'Art du Menuisier. And does anybody here still get their water via traditional well/bucket? Or vaccinations?

Yes, I'm being outrageous, trying to say 'careful what you wish for.' Not all new technology is bad. And with no experimentation and inevitable mistakes, there is no progress. Lucky thing - the luxury to pick and choose our traditions.

As for choosing 18th century steel, I would suspect today's tool offerings are driven by pure economics. Quick search found a $0.37 value for a 'paring chisel' in 1827 (all USA stats - sorry Kees), and 1826 median income for 'artisans' of $8.83/mo. That (used) chisel is thus 4.2% of the user's income. If you assume depreciation of 50%, then it's 8.4% of user's income. LN chisel is $70, and 2011 (latest I found) median income is $2224/mo :: chisel is 3.1% of user's income. HD has $5.49 chisel :: 0.02% of income (opens paint cans too).

So, who will pay $186 (8.4%) for a chisel or plane blade today? I know there are some who will (...we've jealously seen them on your bench!), but for a manufacturer, that 1827-esque forged and laminated product is probably their grave marker in bankruptcy court, since the Japanese smiths seem to have cornered this 'boutique' market segment. (How about these at >$400/ea.?) Overall, I'm guessing that fewer chisels are made/sold today (vs. 1827), in spite of ~23X the USA population - 13MM vs 308MM (1830 & 2010 census).

My earlier post about super-alloys? Not only do I not know how they'd perform in a cutting tool, I'm betting they'd be $1000??? each. Today's market just isn't big enough. And for the overwhelming majority in this market, who might use them properly, this is a hobby (Kees' elderly hobbyists). It isn't an asset or a tax deduction. Others just look at such tools as 'disposable' - - if its dull, throw it away - - and you can't do that with a $1000 anything.

We live in the age of 'BIG DATA', so I'd also bet Stanley, LN, and LV know exactly how many tools they can sell at any given price point. They all sell what their market will bear. If you want innovation, you pay big for it. If you want traditional, you pay big for it.

If a tool suits our individual needs, does it matter if there is 'better'? We each buy what we can bear.

[Prashun Patel]

I'm closing this thread.

Not because of any violations per se.

But the original tests done by Kees seem to have been lost in the 9 succeeding pages of tangential debate.

Thanks, Kees for taking the time to document and publish.

To continue the other debate, please start a new thread.