millwright mortise chisel questions.

[Bob Smalser]

Allow me to recap the gems posted here so I can keep track, besides Buck’s special insight into millwork and “millwrights” being the timber framers who built the factories, not the guys who worked inside them:

1) A piece of forged, tempered tool-steel with more depth than width in its cross section is in danger of bending or breaking when used to lever out wood chips in quarter-inch or 3/8 mortises. When all it has to do is overcome wood’s relatively weak “shear parallel to grain” strength of between 600 and 1200 psi. When a soft solder joint runs 28,000 psi, a braze or weld above 40,000 psi and a solid steel billet half again stronger than that or more.

2) Beginning in 1840, mortising machines became increasingly common, largely eliminating the need for American-made mortise chisels. Hence there weren’t many except those imported from England. Nor were there apparently any trades that used them except large furniture and millwork factories. Or at least too few trades to justify manufacturing them in America. Forget about shipwrights, boatbuilders, carriage and wagon makers, aircraft manufacturers, house builders, piano and organ makers, every town’s cabinetmaker, and the myriad of repairmen. All the Bucks, Swans, Witherby’s, Gillespies, White’s and New Haven’s displayed here are really something else besides mortise chisels. The last time we had this discussion they were all “framing” chisels. Now they seem to have evolved into “firmer” chisels, too weak to chop mortises.

3) All the many thousands of ships built between 1917 and 1953 except for a few wooden minesweepers were made from steel. So why would any yard need chisels? After all, boats at the rate of five to a dozen per ship were fiberglass, weren’t they? Further, each one of those lifeboats contained a tool kit for repairing the boat or even building a new one if stranded in a remote location. Guess what kind of chisels were in that tool kit? Or in the “carpenter’s tool chests” that accompanied almost every 150-man company of troops in WWI and WWII? That some of the millwright chisels are stamped “US” might be a clue.

4) WWII shipyards routinely moved thousand-pound workpieces back to the shop for more machining after being laminated, surfaced and shipsawn in the shop and moved in place for layout and fitting. After all, crane time was free and this particular ship was probably the only vessel being built in the yard at the time. Right. In 1943.

[Joel Moskowitz]

I have a tendency to go to original sources and my interest is the 19th and earlier centuries. In 1854 England was so concerned that the Americans were beating their pants off in industry that they sent a committee on the machinery of the US to the US in 1855 to see what was up. The committee was industry specialists including Joseph Whitworth. The report, which of course is first hand, by experts, goes from factory to factory for all sorts of industries. THe one common theme. especially in the furniture industry is the universal use of a factory system, the abundance of specialist machines, the use of a semi-skilled labor force, and to total lack of traditional furniture work. We of course have to remember that this is 1854 and while the real push for industrialization was just starting, the real shocker of automation to these gents would look like a lot of handwork to us today. Machines cut and planes the wood, cut the joints, did the turning. humans did all the final assembly.
This country didn't have an apprenticeship tradition like they did in Europe and In rich areas of the country you do see of course lots custom furniture. After all that's what's in the museums. But in many cases - maybe even most the labor force was immigrants trained in Europe. Not multi generation local cabinetmking firms. ( there are probably exceptions of course but even as a kid my recollections of the chances of any skilled cabinetmaker in NYC being a native English speaker was small.) This of course was not true outside major populations areas.

THe higher end hardware stores catering to the bespoke funiture trade routinely sold German and English tools along with American made tools. To this day in NYC flea markets I would probably find it easier to locate a German/Swiss made chisel than any American chisel except maybe Stanley. Of course in NYC furniture had a very heavy German influence.

American tool catalogs of the 19th century barely mention mortise chisels compared to the space dedicated to mortising machines of all types. Although when it came to mortising they many times list English mortise chisels. (carving tools were also almost always imported - usually from Ward & Payne.)

THe 1890 Buck Brothers Catalog lists 33 different types of chisels. 33, not gouges, just chisels. That's one maker, two brands, The differences between say a millwrights chisels, a coachmakers chisel, a mortise chisel, and a ship-carpenters chisel are obvious in the drawings, and have a lot more to do than length. The differences also make engineering sense to me, although I can understand why many people didn't feel the need to buy more expensive specialist tools. I would be curious what styles of chisels a local hardware store in a shipbuilding area stocked in the mid-late 19th century.

Ship building, like many woodworking trades outside of the construction were fairly small by comparison. A few hundred thousand people building ships pales in contrast to the millions in construction. So what happens, especially around WW1 is the simplification and rationalization of product lines. Lower demand industries (think of it in an industry with 100,000 workers how many need to buy a chisel in any given year) lose their specialist tools and the more general styles, which certainly work, remain. So people adapt. But these days where we are trying to rediscover older techniques that apply to hand tools - it just makes sense to go back and get the original styles of tools. A master craftsman can usually make anything using what ever tools are available but if you are starting out, why not start with the most efficient design for a particular trade that you are interested in.

Incidentally I remember reading years ago that the original Winterthur collection didn't include any furniture after 1850 because of the introduction of machines. I don't know if that's still true (I hope not)

[Archie England]

Tis a humbling and wonderful opportunity to learn from those who have invested a life time of practice and/or study to these tools. Thank you--to each of you who have contributed to my knowledge in this area. My dad taught me decades ago that there was education better than the school of hard-knocks; so, I tremendously respect Bob Smalser and appreciate the fact that he brought living facts to the discussion. There's no doubt that what he describes from the muscle memory of those years IS PRECISELY how that occurred. To argue otherwise is ... well, you know. However, I tremendously appreciate Joel Moskowitz because he is attempting to research and archive such knowledge for future generations. We are privileged to have both the researcher and the experienced expert/builder. Again, thank you for improving my knowledge.

Here's what I've gleaned--

1. morticing tools (mill length) were variously labeled with slight differences (hoops or not) as a marketing ploy to appeal to all the various industry applications.
2. sway designs didn't necessarily mean anything about tool weakness but rather indicated how a mfg attempted to gain attention
3. proof of the durability of these thin morticing chisels is the fact that we're still using them. Obvious are the bent, cracked, snapped ones. And, as obvious, abuse of most any tool can render even the best made tools damaged.
4. Research data has telescoped its assessment of the how many handtools were continued in use once large capacity equipment emerged. There appears to be significant testimony and evidence that WW2 builders reflected a huge upsurge in hand tool usage that "textbooks" failed to document.
5. The answer to the OP? is yes, these are millwright mortice chisels but they don't look at all like the Ray Iles mortice chisels and, hence, cause most of us to shrink back from thinking that they will endure a mallet pounding.
6. This leads me to conclude that we now perceive two mortice chisel traditions possibly--the American tradition (slimmer, taller) vs. the British (stouter, shorter). I DO WONDER IF THIS OCCURRED DUE TO TOOL MFG PROCESSES--continued smithing in the UK vs. cast pouring in USA? Any guesses?

[Chris Vandiver]

I say you're absolutely correct, you should give them a try. You might want to try what is commonly called a mortise chisel, so you can have some reference. Blind faith isn't always a good thing. By all means, let us know how it works out.

The attachment to this previous post is from the 1911 James Swan catalogue. Pictured are the parts of 4 pages of chisels. There are 44 pages of socketed and tanged chisels in this catalogue edition. I would guess that James Swan Mfg. had a pretty good idea of what the nomenclature of the time was.